IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


/. 


{•/ 


<;.  % 


^#.^^ 


y. 


m 


1.0 


I.I 


*-ilM  !||!!M 

::  ■-  iiiiM 

2.0 


1^ 


1.8 


1.25      1.4 

1.6 

■* 6"     — 

► 

Wa 


<? 


//, 


w 


-el 


^ 


<^M  ->. 


rf 


/a 


/A 


o 


''W 


7 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY    14580 

(716)  872-4503 


#> 


^^ 


V 


^v 


<v 


N> 


O^ 


<t. 


Ua 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  canadien  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  iti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-6tre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m6thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


D 


D 
D 
D 

D 


Couverture  endommag^e 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pelliculie 


□    Cover  title  missing/ 
Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

I      I    Coloured  maps/ 


D 


Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr6e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int6rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  film^es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl6mentaires: 


D 
D 
D 
0 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagies 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restauries  et/ou  pellicul6es 

Page'5  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachetdes  ou  piqudes 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ddtachdes 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Quality  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppldmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errats,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meillaure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqud  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

J 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


tails 

du 
odifier 

une 
mage 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

D,  B.  Weldon  Library 
University  of  Western  Ontario 

The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


L'exemplaire  filmi  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
ginArositi  de: 

D.  B.  Weldon  Library 
University  of  Western  Ontario 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  dti  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettet6  de  l'exemplaire  filmi,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimde  sont  filmds  en  commenqant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film^s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED "),  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END  "), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  —•-  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  lu 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmds  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seui  clich6,  11  est  film6  d  partir 
de  Tangle  supdrieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mithcde. 


rrata 
to 


pelure, 
nd 


D 


32X 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

|.      4 

5 

6 

Rev.  T.  J.  STILES. 


I 

I 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST 

'        »   - 


Ci)e  93alD\JDtn  iLrcturesi. 


INSTITUTGS  OF  CHRISTIAN  HISTORY. 

An  Introuu(  tion  to  Historic  Keauinc;  anu 
Study.  Hy  A.  CLtVELANU  Coxt,  Bishop  uf  West- 
ern New  Vork. 

WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 

A    CONTRinUTION    TO    CHRISTIAN    APOLOGETICS.       By 

William  Clark,  M.A.,    Professor  of  rhilosophy, 
Trinity  College,  Toronto, 

Price  ^l.bO  per  Volume 


A.   C.  McCLURQ  AND  COMPANY, 
PubUnliers. 


■d^t  x&moin  lecturer,  1887 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST 


A   CONTRIBUTION 

TO 

CHRISTIAN     APOLOGETICS 


BY 


WILLIAM    CLARK,   M.A. 

PROI-ESSOK   Ol-   I-IIILOSOPIIY    IN    UUNITV   COLtEGB,  TORONTO 


CHICAGO 

A.  C  McCLURG  AND   COMPANY 

1888 


r 


Copyright, 
Hv  A.  C.  McClurg  and  Co. 

A.D.    1888. 


EXTRACT  FROM  THE  DEED  OF  TRUST, 

IN   ACCORDANCE  WITH   THE   PROVISIONS   OF  WHICH 
THE   BALDWIN   LECTURES   WERE  INSTITUTED. 


"  OTfjts  instrument,  made  and  executed  between 
Samuel  Smith  Harris,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Michigan,  of  the  city 
of  Detroit,  Wayne  County,  Michigan,  as  party  of  the 
first  part,  and  Henry  P.  Baldwin,  Alonzo  B.  Palmer, 
Henry  A.  Hayden,  Sidney  D.  Miller,  and  Henry  P. 
Baldwin,  2d,  of  the  State  of  Michigan,  Trustees  under 
the  trust  created  by  this  instrument,  as  parties  of  the 
second  part,  witnesseth  as  follows  :  — 

"  In  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  eighty-five,  the  said  party  of  the  first  part, 
moved  by  the  importance  of  bringing  all  practicable 
Christian  influences  to  bear  upon  the  great  body  of 
students  annually  assembled  at  the  University  of  Mich- 
igan, undertook  to  promote  and  set  in  operation  a  plan 
of  Christian  work  at  said  University,  and  collected  con- 
tributions for  that  purpose,  of  which  plan  the  following 
outline  is  here  given,  that  is  to  say  :  — 

"  I.  To  erect  a  building  or  hall  near  the  Universily, 


EXTRACT  FROM  THE  DEED  OF  TRUST. 


W 


1^' 


ill  which  there  should  be  cheerful  par'ors,  a  well- 
equipped  reading-room,  and  a  lecture-room  where  the 
lectures  hereinafter  mentioned  might  be  given  ; 

"  2.  To  endow  a  lectureship  similar  to  the  I5amptor> 
Lectureship  in  I'higland,  for  the  establishment  and  de- 
fence of  CMiristian  truth  :  the  lectures  on  such  founda- 
tion to  be  delivered  annually  at  Ann  Arbor  by  a  learned 
clergyman  or  other  connnunicant  of  the  Protestant 
episcopal  (Jhurch,  to  be  chosen  as  hereinafter  i)ro- 
vided  :  such  lectures  to  be  not  less  than  six  nor  more 
than  eight  in  number,  and  to  be  published  in  book 
form  before  the  income  of  the  fund  shall  be  paid  to  the 
lecturer ; 

"  3.  To  endow  two  other  lcctureshii)s,  one  on  bib- 
lical Literature  and  Learning,  and  the  other  on  Chris- 
tian Kvitlences  :  the  object  of  such  lectureships  to  be 
to  provide  for  all  the  students  who  may  be  willing  to 
avail  themselves  of  them  a  comj)lete  course  of  instruc- 
tion in  sacred  learning,  and  in  the  ])hilosophy  of  right 
thinking  and  right  living,  without  which  no  education 
can  justly  be  considered  complete  ;  '■ 

"  4.  To  organize  a  society,  to  be  composed  of  the 
students  in  all  classes  and  departments  of  the  Univer- 
sity who  may  be  members  of  or  attached  to  the  Prot- 
estant Lpiscopal  Church,  of  which  society  the  Bishop 
of  the  Diocese,  the  Rector,  Wardens,  and  Vestrymen 
of  St.  Andrew's  Parish,  and  all  the  Professors  of  the 
University  who  are  communicants  of  the  I'rotestant 
r^piscopal  Church  should  be  members  ex  cfficio,  which 
society  should  have  the  care  and  management  of  the 
reading-room  and  lecture-room  of  the  hall,  and  of  all 
exercises  or  employments  carried  on  therein,  and 
should  moreover  annually  elect  each  of  the  lecturers 


EXTRACT  FROM  THE  DEED  OF  TRUST 


hereinbefore  mentioned,  upon  the  nomination  of  the 
Bishop  of  the  1  )iocese. 

"  In  pursuance  of  the  said  plan,  the  said  society  of 
students  and  otliers  has  been  (hily  orj^anized  under  the 
name  cf  the  '  Ilobart  (luild  of  the  University  of  Mich- 
igan ; '  the  hall  above  mentioned  has  been  buildcd  and 
called  '  Hobart  Hall ;  '  and  Mr.  Henry  P.  Baldwin  of 
Detroit,  Michigan,  and  Sibyl  A.  Baldwin,  his  wife,  have 
given  to  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  the  sum  of  ten 
thousand  dollars  for  the  endowment  and  support  of  the 
lectureship  first  hereinbefore  mentioned. 

"  Now,  therefore,  I,  the  said  Samuel  Smith  Harris, 
Bishop  as  aforcsaiil,  do  hereby  give,  grant,  and  transfer 
to  the  said  Henry  I'.  Baldwin,  Alonzo  B.  Balmer, 
Henry  .'\.  Hayden,  Sidney  D.  Miller,  and  Henry  1'. 
Baldwin,  2d,  Trustees  as  aforesaid,  the  said  sum  of  ten 
thousand  dollars  to  be  invested  in  good  and  safe  inter- 
est-bearing securities,  the  net  income  thereof  to  be  paid 
and  ajjplied  from  time  to  time  as  hereinafter  provided, 
the  said  simi  and  the  income  thereof  to  be  held  in 
trust  for  the  following  uses  :  — 

"  I.  The  said  fund  sliall  be  know^n  as  the  Endow- 
ment Fund  of  the  I'aldwin  Lectures. 

"  2.  There  shall  be  chosen  annually  by  the  Hobart 
(luild  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  upon  the  nomina- 
tion of  the  Bishop  of  ^^ichigan,  a  learned  clergyman  or 
other  conmiunicant  of  the  Protestant  I-piscojial  Church, 
to  deliver  at  .Ann  Arbor  and  under  the  ausi)ices  of  the 
said  Hobart  (luild,  between  the  Feast  of  St.  Michael 
and  All  .Vngels  and  the  Feast  of  St.  Thomas,  in  each 
year,  not  less  than  six  nor  more  than  eight  lectures,  for 
the  Establishment  and  Defence  of  (Christian  Truth  ;  the 
said  lectures  to  be  published  in  book  form  by  Easter  of 


8 


EXTRACT  I'liOM  THE  DEED  OE  TKC\S7\ 


the  following  year,  and  to  be  entitled  '  The  Baldwin 
Lectures; '  and  there  shall  be  paid  to  the  said  lecturer 
the  income  of  the  said  endowment  fun«l,  u])on  the  de- 
livery of  fifty  copies  of  said  lectures  to  the  said  Trustees 
or  their  succjssors ;  the  said  printed  volumes  to  con- 
tain, as  an  extra(  t  from  this  instrument,  or  in  condensed 
form,  a  statement  of  the  object  and  conditions  of  this 
trust." 


III! 


PREFACE. 


IT  is  needless  to  say  that  the  lectures  pub- 
lished in  this  volume  were  undertaken  and 
delivered  under  a  very  deep  sense  of  responsi- 
bility, and  even  with  a  measure  of  anxiety.  If 
this  anxiety  was  excessive,  I  may  plead  that  it 
is  a  serious  matter  to  deal  with  the  phases  of 
contemporaneous  thought  in  their  relation  to 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  endeavor  to  ex- 
tort testimonies  to  the  power  of  the  Cross  from 
foes  as  well  as  from  friends.  It  is  a  serious 
undertaking  "  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith 
which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  P?Jpts." 
Whether  this  work  has  been  accomplished 
with  any  kind  of  success,  it  does  not  become 
me  to  say.  I  may,  however,  be  permitted  to 
remark  that  I  have  not  addressed  myself  to  the 
subjects  of  these  lectures  without  having  taken 
considerable  pains  to  become  acquainted  with 
the'positions  of  our  opponents;  and  further,  that 
I  shall  have  reason  to  be  amply  satisfied  if  tiie 


10 


PREFACE. 


public  shall  receive  the  volume  with  only  a  fair 
measure  of  the  kind  acceptance  granted  to  the 
lectures  when  they  were  delivered. 

"  We  owe  these  foundations,"  ^  —  the  "  Ilobart 
Guild  "  and  the  "  l^aldwin  Lectures,"  —  says  my 
distinguished  and  accomplished  predecessor, 
Bishop  Cleveland  Coxe,  "  to  the  enlightened 
wisdom  and  foresight  of  the  Right  Reverend 
Prelate,  who,  with  such  great  advantage  to  the 
Church  at  large,  now  presides  over  the  Diocese 
of  Michigan.  But  he  would  hardly  forgive  me 
should  I  neglect  to  add,  that  in  the  munificence 
of  Governor  Baldwin  and  his  accomplished  wife 
he  has  found  that  sort  of  encouragement  and 
help  without  which  the  ablest  and  most  zealous 
bishop  is  impotent  to  effect  what  his  heart  and 
head  may  prompt  him  to  propose  as  due  alike 
to  the  Republic  and  to  the  Church  of  Christ." 

It  was  of  unspeakable  advantage  to  the  sec- 
ond lecturer  ♦^hat  the  importance  of  the  work 
of  the  Guild  should  have  been  commended  by 
Bishop  Cleveland  Coxe,  although  in  other  re- 
spects it  made  his  own  work  more  difficult.  It 
is  impossible  for  me  to  say  how  grcatl\-  my  task 
was  lightened  by  the  generous  support  of  the 
Bi::hop  of  Michigan,  by  whom  I  was  appointed 
to  the  lectureship  with  the  hearty  concurrence 

*  The  reader  is  referred  more  particularly  to  the  extract 
from  tlic  "  Deed  of  Trust  "  on  page  5. 


PREFACE. 


I  I 


ly  a  fair 
J  to  the 

Ifobart 
iays  my 
cccssor, 
,^htcncd 
:vcrcnd 

to  the 
!)iocc.sc 
jivc  mc 
ficcncc 
cd  wife 
nt  and 
jealous 
rt  and 

alike 
1st." 
e  sec- 
work 
cd  by 

r  re- 
It 

task 
the 

ntcd 

cnce 


of  Governor  Baldwin.  The  people  of  Detroit 
and  of  the  Diocese  of  Michigan  know  these  il- 
lustrious men  too  well  to  need  that  a  compara- 
tive stranger  should  do  more  than  express  his 
personal  gratitude  and   respect  for  them. 

It  is  seldom,  perhaps,  in  the  preface  to  lec- 
tures of  this  kind,  that  remarks  of  a  character  so 
personal  should  be  introduced.  15ut  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  do  otherwise  at  the  beginning  of 
such  an  undertaking;  and  I  shelter  m\-self  under 
th.e  great  example  of  my  predecessor  when  I 
acknowledge  the  personal  kindness  and  sym- 
pathy which  I  received  from  the  inhabitants 
of  the  beautiful  university  town  in  which  the 
lectures  were  delivered. 

To  several  of  the  Professors,  to  private  mem- 
bers of  the  I'^.piscopal  Church,  and  to  prominent 
representatives  of  other  communions,  I  am  un- 
der deep  and  lasting  obligations.  To  the  Rev. 
Dr.  ICarp,  Rector  of  St.  Andrew's  Church,  who 
has  done  such  admirable  and  successfid  work 
for  the  Episcopal  Church  and  for  the  Hobart 
Guild,  not  only  my  thanks  but  the  thanks  of  the 
whole  community  are  due,  and  are  here  offered 
by  me  in  my  own  name,  and  in  the  name  of 
many  besides  myself 

In  a  course  of  lectures,  the  material  {c>x  which 
has  been  accumulating  through  a  number  of 
years,  it  is  not  easy  to  indicate  all  the  sources 


m 


12 


PREI'ACE. 


from  which  ideas  or  trains  of  thought  have 
been  derived.  Wherever  I  have  known  of  anv 
obhgations  of  this  kind  I  have  acknowledged 
them  in  the  notes,  although  doubtless  many 
have  escaped  my  memory.  With  reference 
to  the  two  lectures  on  the  Resurrection,  it 
ma/  seem  a  matter  of  surprise  that  no  refer- 
ence is  made  to  Dr.  Milligan's  excellent  work 
on  this  subject.  The  fact  is,  that  these  lec- 
tures were  drawn  up  immediately  after  the 
.publication  of  the  third  volume  of  "  Supernat- 
ural Religion,"  and  before  I  had  seen  Dr.  Milli- 
gan's work.  Whatever  coincidences  may  be 
found,  are  attributable  simply  to  our  having 
dealt  with  the  same  subject  and  the  same 
material. 

May  our  gracious  and  loving  Lord  accept 
this  humble  tribute  to  the  truth  and  glory  of 
His  woik,  and  pardon  its  defects! 

W.  C. 

Trinity  College,  Toronto, 
,         Epiphany,  iS88. 


Hi' 


CONTENTS. 


LFXTURE    I. 


PHASES   AND   FAILURES   OF  UNBELIEF. 


Page 


Reasons  for  Unbelief.  —  Conflict  to  be  expected.  —  The 
Work  of  the  Chiircli  in  the  Past.  —  I'resent  Duty.  — 
The  Spirit  of  our  Woriv.  —  The  present  Position  of  the 
Conflict.  —  Fears  and  Hopes.  —  The  last  Hundred 
Years.  —  Three  Phases  of  Thought  in  Unbelief:  the 
Theological,  the  Metaiihysical,  anti  the  Positive. — 
Ai)parent  Discouragements.  —  The  Three  Forms  of 
Unbeh'cf  :  I.  Rationalism,  —  Rcimarus  ;  Paulus  ; 
Exami)lcs  of  Treatment ;  Uses;  Failure.  II.  Mytii- 
iciSM,  —  Strauss,  Value  of  his  Work,  gave  a  Death- 
blow to  Rationalism;  Measure  of  Truth  in  Pantheism  ; 
F'ailure  of  Mythicism.  ;  Kenan's  "  Vie  de  Jesus  ;  " 
Strauss's  new  "  Leben  Jesu."  III.  Matkrialism, — 
Strauss's  "The  OU'.  Faith  and  the  New"      .     .     .     19-49 


LECTURE    II. 


CIVILIZATION    AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  Gospel  in  the  World.  —  Christian  Ideal  and  Christian 
Life  contrasted. —  Has  Christianity  failed.?  —  Modern 
Civilization  and  Christianity.  —  Clpposing  Views.  — 
I.  The  World  before  Christ  :  Claims  of  the  Ancient 
World  real;  Serious  Defects;  vitiated  by  Egoism. — 
Plato  and  Aristotle.  —  Citizens,  Slaves,  liarbarians, 
luicniics.  —  Creeks  and  Romans  alike.  —  Cicero.  — 
Condition  of  various  Classes  :  i.  Women,  —  Status, 
Marriage,  Dependence  ;   2.  Working  Classes,  —  Manual 


J4 


CONTENTS. 


Paub 


Labor  thought  degrading ;  3.  Slaves,  —  Slavery  ac- 
cepted by  the  Philosophers,  the  Laws  relating  to  Slav- 
ery, Slavery  in  Practice,  Exceptions,  Doctrine  of  Stoics. 
—  II.  The  Jsetd  supplied:  the  Gospel  of  Human 
Brotherhood  ;  its  Foundation  in  Christ.  — The  Kingdom 
of  (jod  ;  its  Subjects;  its  Laws. —  Changes  effected: 
I.  Condition  of  Women  ;  2.  Laboring  Classes  ;  3.  The 
Poor,  —  provided  for  by  Christianity;  the  Lmperor 
Julian;  4.  Slaves,  —  Objection  that  there  is  no  Chris- 
tian Command  for  Emancipation;  Answer,  —  what  the 
Gosjjel  has  done,  what  it  has  to  do  ;  5.  War;  6.  Legis- 
lation.—  Conclusion 50-78 


LECTURE    III. 


"m 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND    RELIGION. 

Man,  Individual  and  Social. — Transition  from  Civiliza- 
tion to  personal  Culture.  —  Man's  Nature  and  Cul- 
ture. —  Points  of  Agreement.  —  I.  Theories  of  Culture 
various,  but  reducible  to  two,  Religious  and  Non-Reli- 
gious: I.  The  Non-Religious, —  (i)  .Social,  (2)  Scien- 
tific, (3)  Literary,  (4)  Positivist  ;  2.  The  Christian. — 
IL  Means  of  Attainment  :  Human  Culture  not  under- 
valued, but  insutificient,  as  not  taking  account  of  Man's 
whole  Nature;  illustrated:  i.  Idea  of  Immortality;  2. 
Responsibility,  —  (i)  Conscience,  (2)  the  Idea  of  God, 
(3)  Consciousness  rif  Sin,  (4)  how  met  by  the  Gos- 
pel, (5)  Effects  produced.  —  Mill.  —  Goethe  and  Saint 
Francois  de  .Sales.  —  Luther  and  Rousseau.  —  General 
Effects.  —  The  Christian  Ideal.  —  Lecky.  —  Mill  on 
Belief  in  Immortality;  on  the  Life  and  Teaching  of 
Jesus 79"' ^3 


LECTURE    IV. 


THE   UNITY   OF  CHRISTIAN   DOCTRINE. 

Does  the  Bible  teach  definite  Religious  Truth  ?  —  Denied. 
—  What  may  be  meant  by  the  Denial }  —  Divine  Reve- 
lation in  Christ.  —  Gradually   unfolded.  —  True   De- 


■  .rif 


CONTEXTS. 


15 


velopmcnt.  —  Illustrated  in  the  Writings  of  Snint  Paul. 

—  Later  Kxampks  of  Development  in  the  History  of 
the  Church.  —  Schools  of  Thought.  —  IJeveiopmcnt 
and  Accretion  distinguished.  —  Illustrations  of  Unity 
in  Christian  Teaching  :  1.  The  Nature  of  (Jod.  —  Repre- 
sented as  possessing  Human  Attributes  and  as  being 
far  removed  from  Humanity. —  Dcistic  and  I'antheistic 
Conceptions.  —  2.  'I'he  Character  of  (jod.  —  Divine 
Decrees  and  Human  Liberty.  —  3.  The  Nature  of  Man. 

—  ( )riginal  Sin.  —  Concupiscence.  —  4.  Kschatology.  — 
Future  Retribution.  —  Three  current  Theories. —  Not 
absolutely  Irreconcilable.  —  Analogy  of  the  Book  of 
Nature  and  Science  with  the  liook  of  Grace  and 
Theology 114-141 


LECTURE    V. 


THE   INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM. 


Universality  of  Iklief  in  God.  —  Materialism  and  Atheism 
inseparably  connected.  —  Materialism,  what  it  is.  —  Ma- 
terialistic Accounts  of  the  Origin  of  Life.  —  Evolution 
not  necessarily  materialistic.  — The  Atomic  Theory  no 
Explanation  of  Life.  —  Materialism,  pure  and  sim])le, 
generally  abandoned.  —  Opinions  of  eminent  Scientific 
Men.  —  The  Principle  of  Energy  or  Force.  —  Mr.  Spen- 
cer's E.xposition.  —  Must  we  n(jt  go  further  .-'  Mr. 
Spencer,  to  some  E.xtent,  in  Agreement  with  the  Gospel, 

—  but  in  his  "  Force  "  we  recognize  Mind.  —  We  are 
compelled  to  go  beyond  the  Facts  and  Laws  of  the 
Material  Universe.  —  We  know  Mind  directly,  Matter 
indirectly.  —  What  do  we  learn  from  the  I'",xternal 
World  "i  —  Kant's  Categories.  —  Laws  of  Nature  im- 
ply Mind.  —  The  Argument  from  Design,  —  Objec- 
tions considered.  —  What  we  believe  and  assert.  — 
Our  Conclusions  called  in  Question.  —  Spirit  personal. 

—  The  Ego  and  Non-Ego.  —  The  Analogy  of  the  Finite 
inapplicable  to  the  Infinite.  —  Conclusions.     .     .     142-179 


i6 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE    VI. 


THE   PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


II 


Pace 


Connection  between  Faith  and  Action.  —  Different  Ten- 
dencies in  Human  Nature  explain  the  Origin  of  Pessi- 
mism and  Optimism. —  Meaning  of  these  Terms.  — Views 
of  Jews,  Greeks,  and  Romans.  —  Christian  View.  —  .Sen- 
timent of  Deism.  —  Buddhism.  —  I.  Modern  Pessimism, 
—  I.copardi,  Schopenhauer,  liartmann;  Leopardi's  three 
possible  Ways  of  Happiness;  .Schopenhauer's  Theory. — 
II.  What  we  are  to  thini<  of  Pessimism.  —  i.  Effort  not 
necessarily  productive  of  Unhappiness ;  2.  Pleasure  not 
merely  Negative ;  3.  The  Development  and  Elevation 
of  Life  not  a  mere  Increase  of  Misery.  —  Increased 
Sensibility  and  Intelligence  also  a  Source  of  Happi- 
ness.—  Testimonies  of  Instinct  and  Reason. —  The 
Reply  of  Pessimism  :  Men  deceive  themselves.  —  The 
Rejoinder  of  Consciousness.  —  A  Future  Life.  —  III. 
How  can  we  account  for  Pessimism  ?  —  Partly  the  Re- 
sult of  Temperament  and  Constitutio  ',  partly  of  the 
Circumstances  of  Individuals  and  Comi. unities.  —  Chief 
Cause  found  in  the  State  of  Religious  Belief.  —  Con- 
dition of  Germany.  —  Pessimism  can  flourish  only  on 
the  Ruins  of  Faith.  —  Examples  of  Faith  and  Unbe- 
lief.—  The  Gospel  and  Agnosticism.  —  Deism.  —  Athe- 
ism. —  Pessimism  the  last  Word  of  Positivism.  — 
Conclusion 180- 


!I5 


LECTURE    VII. 

THE   RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 
PART    I. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  EVIDENCE   FOR  THE  RESURRECTION. 

I.  Introductory.  —  Importance  of  the  Event.  —  The  Gos- 
pel founded  on  Facts. —  Necessity  of  Revelation  for 
the  Support  of  Religious  Truth.  —  2.  The  Fact  of  the 
Resurrection.  —  Its  Meaning.  —  3.  The  Nature  of  the 
Evidence. —  No  Evidence  sufficient  for  those  who  dis- 


CONTENTS. 


17 

Pack 


believe  in  the  Supernatural.  —  The  Existence  of  a 
Personal  God  i)ostulatccl.  —  The  Church  exists  and 
professes  to  have  the  Knowledge  of  God  by  Revela- 
tion. —  The  Harden  of  Proof  not  entirely  with  the  Chris- 
tian. —  Points  on  which  there  is  general  Agreement.  — 
The  Documentary  Proof.  —  Two  Questions  :  (i)  What 
did  the  Disciples  of  Christ  believe  .>  (2)  Are  we  justi- 
fied in  bcUcvinj^  the  Same.'  —  4.  The  Evidence  of  the 
Gospel  Histories;  their  Agreement;  their  Statements. 

—  Objections:  Not  seen  to  rise;  Disagreement  as  to 
the  Time,  as  to  the  Circumstances;   Legendary  Details. 

—  Answers. —  Final  Verdict  on  Evidence.  —  5  The  Evi- 
dence of  Saint  Paul. — Documents  admitted.  —  Points 
of  Agreement.  —  What  the  admitted  Documents  assert. 

—  An  independent  Testimony.  —  Its  Value  affected  by 
the  Character  of  the  Witness.  —  Objections  to  his 
Testimony.  —  Answers.  —  The  Value  of  Saint  Paul's 
Testimony.  —  Disingenuous  and  inconsistent  Objection. 

—  Answer 216-254 


LECTURE    VIII. 

THE   RESURKECTION   OF  JESUS   CHRIST. 


SECTION. 


PART    II. 

EXAMINATION   OF  THEORIES   INVENTED  TO  SET  ASIDE 
THE   EVIDENCE   tOK  THE   RESURRECTION. 

No  Evidence  will  convince  those  who  are  resolved  not  to 
believe.  —  Theory  of  In-.posture  abandoned.  —  How, 
then,  escape  from  the  Force  of  the  Testimony  .'  —  Two 
Theories:  i.  The  Theory  of  Apparent  Death,  —  partly 
abandoned,  partly  kept  in  Reserve.  —  The  one  Element 
of  Probability  in  the  Theory.  —  But  consider  what  the 
Theory  requires  us  to  believe.  —  Difficulties.  —  Does 
not  account  for  the  Change  in  the  Apostles.  —  Involves 
Imposture.  —  2.  The  Vision  Hypothesis.  —  The  last 
Word  of  the  Assailants.  —  Asserts  Illusion,  not  Im- 
posture. —  The  Theory  explained.  —  Nut  entirely  new. 
—  Different  Views  of  Strauss.  —  What  the  Illusion 
Theory  involves.  —  Requires  the  inadmissible  Assump- 


!    ' 


lll'i!! 


s'- 


i8 


CONTEXTS. 


Pack 


tion  that  the  Disciples  expected  the  Resurrection.  — 
The  'I'hcaiy  docs  not  account  for  the  Change  in  the 
iJisciplcs.  —  Inconsistent  Treatment  of  the  (iospcls. 
—  Mary  Magdalene.  —  The  Apo.stlcs.  —  Thcii  Doubts 
and  Disbelief. —  The  Vision  fails  to  account  for  un- 
doubted Facts.  —  Why  did  the  Appearances  cease  so 
abruptly?  —  What  became  of  the  Sacred  Body.'  — 
The  Truth  of  the  Resurrection  alone  accounts  for  the 
new  Faith  of  the  Disciples.  —  The  End  of  this  Con- 
troversy          255-2S5 


Notes 287-300 


Pace 

ction.  — 
e  in  the 
(iospcls. 
r  Doubts 
for  un- 
ccase  so 
3ocly  ?  — 
>  for  the 
lis  Con- 
.     255-285 


WITNESSES    TO    CHRIST. 


.  287-300 


LECTURE    I. 


PHASES  AND   FAILURES   OF   UNBELIEF. 


Reasons  for  Unbelief.  —  Conflict  to  be  expected.  —  The  Work 
of  tlie  Church  in  the  Past.  —  Present  Duty.  — The  Spirit  of 
our  Worlv.  —  The  present  Position  of  the  Conflict.  —  Fears 
and  Hopes.  —  The  last  Hundred  Years.  —  Three  Phases  of 
Thought  in  Unbelief  :  the  Theological,  the  Metaphysi- 
cal, and  the  Positive.  —  Apparent  Discouragements.  —  The 
Three  F<>rnis  of  Unbelief  :  I.  Rationalis.m,  —  Rcima- 
rus  ;  Paulas  ;  E.xamples  of  Treatment ;  Uses  ;  Failure. 
II.  Mytiiicis.m,  —  Strauss,  Value  of  his  Work,  gave  a 
Death-blow  to  Rationalism;  Measure  of  Truth  in  Panthe- 
ism ;  Failure  of  Mythicism  ;  Renan's  "  Vic  de  Jesns  ;  " 
Strauss's  new  "  I.eben  Jesu."  III.  M.VIERIALISM,  — 
Strauss's  "  The  Old  Faith  and  the  New." 

IF  the  Gospjl  is  true,  why  is  it  not  generally, 
or  even  universally,  believed  and  accepted? 
If  it  is  really  a  message  of  salvation  sent  from 
God  to  His  sinful  creatures  who  have  sore  need 
of  it,  how  is  it  that  it  is  not  welcomed  by  the 
sinful,  —  how  is  it  that  it  is  disbelieved,  rejected, 
opposed?  Such  questions  are  often  asked  by 
Christians  and  by  unbelievers  alike,  —  by  the 
latter   scornfully,  triumphantly;  by  the    former 


20 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


11 


! 


m 


\ 


sorrowfully,  despondently.  By  the  one  and  the 
other  it  seems  to  be  assumed  that  a  message 
that  was  true  and  beneficent  must  find  a  ready 
acceptance. 

And  yet  those  who  know  and  remember  the 
words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  are  aware  that  He  did 
not  expect  the  world  to  yield  at  once  to  His 
authority  and  His  claims.  Although  at  His 
birth  the  heavenly  hosts  proclaimed  peace  on 
earth;  although  he  left  with  His  disciples  the 
blessing  of  peace  which  the  world  could  not 
give,  and  which  no  man  could  take  away  from 
them;  although  His  very  name  was  the  Prince 
of  Peace,  yet  He  told  them  that  He  came  not 
to  send  peace  upon  earth,  but  a  sword;  and  He 
who  takes  the  sword  must  smite  with  the  sword, 
and  either  perish  by  the  sword,  or  by  it  gain  a 
lasting  victory  and  triumph.  This  conflict  has 
gone  on  ever  since  the  Lord  of  life  was  lifted  up 
into  His  throne  of  glory;  and  all  His  faithful 
followers  must  be  like  Him,  their  Lord,  who  is 
"a  man  of  war,"  and  must  fight  the  good  fight 
of  faith  even  unto  death. 

It  is  a  \^xQ.dX  and  a  terrible  warfare  to  which 
we  are  called,  — to  take  part  in  that  great  battle 
of  Armageddon  which  has  been  raging  ever  since 
moral  evil  appeared  in  the  universe,  and  with 
respect  to  which  no  neutrality  is  allowed,  since 
a  curse  is  spoken  against  those  who  stand  by 
and  come  not  "  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against 
the  mighty."     And  it  is  a  fight  which  must  be 


PHASES  AD  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.      21 


fought  with  no  weapons  of  earthly  fashioning 
or  of  earthly  temper,  but  with  those  which  are 
taken  from  the  armory  of  heaven  and  are  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Leader  of  the  hosts  of  heaven. 

"  Yc  shall  bear  witness,"  said  Christ  to  His 
Apostles;  and  this  is  one  chief  duty,  wc  might 
say  the  first  of  all  the  duties  which  are  laid  upon 
the  Church  of  Christ  in  the  world,  and  upon 
every  member  of  it,  that  they  should  be  wit- 
nesses for  God,  —  witnesses  against  sin  and  er- 
ror, witnesses  for  goodness  and  truth,  letting 
their  light  so  shine  before  men  that  they  may 
see  their  good  works,  and  glorify  their  Father 
which  is  in  heaven. 

In  many  different  ways  and  in  many  different 
circumstances  must  this  testimony  be  borne; 
and  although  in  one  sense  it  is  ever  the  same, 
yet  there  is  need  of  constant  vigilance,  wisdom, 
readiness,  that  it  may  be  a  word  spoken  in 
season  as  it  is  needed,  doing  for  men  that  spe- 
cial work  which  their  necessities  require  and  de- 
mand, and  which  God  thus  indicates  as  the  work 
which  He  expects  His  people  to  perform.  Thus 
I  le  wills  that  wherever  our  lot  is  cast,  we  shall 
"  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints." 

It  can  hardly  be  charged  against  the  Church 
that  she  has  ever  wholly  forgotten  this  duty. 
Sometimes  her  enemies  have  come  in  the  form 
of  that  brutal  violence  which  sought  to  crush 
and  destroy  her  life ;  sometimes  under  the  subtle 


!     >    I 


m 


22 


IV/TNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


garb  oi  sophistry,  which  really  aimed  at  the  de- 
struction of  her  testimony  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,  while  it  seemed  to  be  endeavoring  to  help 
its  [jroj^rcss;  sometimes  in  the  form  of  unbe- 
lief,—  at  one  time  calm,  rational,  and  philosoph- 
ical in  tone;  or  again,  biting,  sarcastic,  and 
contemptuous.  But  against  all  of  these  adver- 
saries the  Church  has,  with  varying  faith  and 
power,  with  varying  courage  and  hopefulness, 
and  so  with  varying  success,  carried  on  the  con- 
flict on  behalf  of  her  Lord  and  His  truth.  It 
could  never  be  lawful  for  her  to  desist;  for  that 
which  she  conserved  was  not  her  own,  but  the 
bequest  of  Another,  and  she  had  no  choice  but 
to  defend  and  preserve  it.  And  the  same  duty 
is  handed  on  to  ourselves,  to  contend  not  for 
anvthiiig  which  we  can  claim  as  our  own,  but 
for  the  honor  of  our  God  and  the  blessedness 
of  His  creatures. 

And  surely  we  must  feel,  if  there  is  any  con- 
flict, if  there  is  any  duty,  which  requires  of  us 
that  we  should  be  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless 
as  doves,  it  is  this  fighting  for  and  defending  the 
ark  of  God.  For  our  antagonists  are  not  our 
enemies.  They  are  men  who  are  loved  by  God ; 
they  arc  men  for  whom  Christ  died.  They  are 
men  not  to  be  treated  with  scorn  and  contumely, 
even  though  they  may  scorn  us  and  blaspheme 
the  holy  name  by  which  we  are  called ;  they 
are  to  be  loved,  pitied,  prayed  for,  persuaded, 
reasoned  with.     In  this  spirit,  and  in  no  other, 


iii 


r//AS/:S  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNliELIEF.   23 


t  the  dc- 
as  it  is  in 
Gj  to  help 
Df  unbe- 
lilosoph- 
>tic,    and 
e  advcr- 
aith   and 
cfulncss, 
the  con- 
ruth.     It 
for  that 
but  the 
oice  but 
mc  duty 
not  for 
)wn,  but 
isedness 

ny  con- 
is  of  us 
armless 
ing  the 
lot  our 
y  God ; 
icy  are 
iimely, 
pheme 

;  they 
uaded, 

other, 


is  it  lawful  for  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
go  forth  against  the   enemies  t)f  the  Cross. 

It  is  one  of  the  great  glories  of  Christ,  that, 
while  lie  never  lowers  his  own  pretensions  or 
His  claims,  lie  will  not  C^cwy  or  (luestion  the 
rights  of  His  creatures.  He  will  have  us  rev- 
ercncc  mankind,  even  when  it  is  in  error,  be- 
cause He  will  win  men  by  truth  and  by  love. 
Who  are  they  that  come  forth  to  do  battle 
against  the  Incarnate  Word  of  Goil?  Some 
there  are,  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  Him- 
self, eager  for  a  knowledge  of  truth,  yet  for  a 
season  blintled  by  prejudice,  by  ignc-ancc,  by 
influences  the  power  of  which  they  have  not 
learned  to  overcome.  Must  we  not  pity  such, 
and  love  them  and  be  patient  with  them?  And 
if  there  are  others  who  have  no  real  love  of 
truth,  who  are  held  by  the  power  of  darkness 
and  of  Satan,  alas!  are  not  they  even  more  to 
be  pitied,  if  they  are  also  to  be  blamed  and 
rebuked?  And  if  it  is  our  duty  at  times  to  re- 
buke then  sharply,  surely  it  should  be  done  in 
a  spirit  of  meekness  and  lowliness,  remembering 
who  it  is  that  hath  made  us  to  differ.  God  help 
us  thus  to  meet  the  enemies  of  the  Cross  as 
those  who  hope  that  one  day  we  may  clasp 
their  hands  as  friends!  May  we  not  also  re- 
mind ourselves  of  that  truth  which  will  again 
and  again  force  itself  upon  our  attention  in  the 
course  of  our  inquiry,  —  that  we  have  much 
to  learn,   and    that    we    have    actually  learned 


WP 


24 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


much  from  the   attacks  and    criticisms   of  our 
adversaries? 

Every  age  has  its  own  peculiar  difficulties  in 
dealing  with  unbelief;  and  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  each  age  should  sec  the  special  arduous- 
ness  of  its  own  appointed  work.  Doubtless 
there  are  in  our  own  days  peculiar  dangers  and 
discouragements  in  connection  with  the  work 
of  maintaining  the  faith ;  but  there  arc  also  pe- 
culiar helps  and  elements  of  hopefulness  lying 
side  by  side  with  these  very  difficulties.  Let  us 
try  to  understand  the  position  of  the  armies  of 
faith  and  unbelief,  and  we  shall  see  that  these 
words  are  not  spoken  without  reason. 

One  of  the  most  subtle  as  well  as  offensive 
modes  of  assailing  the  faith  is  the  method 
adopted  by  those  who  talk  in  a  patronizing 
manner  of  the  benefits  which  religion  has  con- 
ferred upon  mankind  in  earlier  and  ruder  ages, 
while  they  deny  that  it  is  any  longer  a  necessity 
for  the  human  race.  Religion,  in  their  view, 
has  had  its  day.  It  was  useful,  they  think,  in 
the  early  stages  of  human  civilization,  when  the 
laws  of  Nature  were  comparatively  unknown, 
and  men  could  not  be  intlucnced  by  intelligent 
self-interest.  Then,  the  thought  of  a  Being 
whose  commands  men  were  bound  to  obey, 
who  could  reward  them  for  their  obedience 
and  punish  them  for  their  disobedience,  was 
useful  and  helpful ;  but  now  it  would  be  a  dis- 
tinct hindrance  to  a  clear  discernment  of  the 


3   of  our 

:ulties  in 
wonderful 
arduous- 
)oubtlcss 
gcrs  and 
:he  work 
also  pe- 
2SS  lying 
Let  us 
irmies  of 
lat  these 

offensive 
method 
Tonizing 
las  con- 
icr  ages, 
iccessity 
:ir  view, 
think,  in 
/hen  the 
;iknown, 
tclligent 
Being 
obey, 
icdience 
ce,  was 
le  a  dis- 
of  the 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     25 

laws  and  true  conditions  of  human  Hfe.  And 
these  are  the  conckisions  of  perhaps  no  incon- 
siderable number  of  educated  and  reflecting 
men  in  our  own  days.  We  cannot  wonder  that 
many  believers  in  Divine  Revelation  should  be 
seriously  disquieted,  and  that  some  should  even 
be  greatly  alarmed,  at  the  progress  of  such 
opinions. 

It  would  be  unreasonable  for  the  Christian 
apologist  to  ignore  this  somewhat  altered  state 
of  things.  It  would  be  foolish  to  infer,  that, 
because  religion  seems  to  make  great  progress 
in  these  later  days,  therefore  all  opposition  to  it 
must  speedily  cease,  or  may  be  safely  ignored. 
The  warfare  between  faith  and  unbelief  will 
never  cease  until  the  end  shall  come.  It  cannot 
be  said  with  truth  that  the  fight  is  hotter  than 
in  former  days.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  cooler, 
calmer,  carried  on  with  less  of  noise  and  of  pas- 
sion ;  but  it  is  as  deep  and  as  earnest  as  ever.  It 
is  perhaps  natural  that  this  superficial  change 
should  have  come  over  the  spirit  of  the  com- 
batants. The  exact  nature  of  the  conflict  is 
much  better  known.  Men  are  no  longer  fight- 
ing in  the  dark  or  in  the  twilight,  but  in  clear 
day.  They  are  no  longer  in  such  danger  of 
confounding  friends  and  foe.s,  of  striking  out 
wildly  because  they  are  in  partial  ignorance 
of  their  position  and  circumstances.  The  field 
of  battle  is  more  clearly  marked  out;  the  posi- 
tion of  the  enemy  is    more    accurately  deter- 


•liil! 


26 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


mined.       Both    sides    know    much    better    the 
exact  nature  of  the  work  to  be  done. 

Most  persons  will  agree  that  such  a  state  of 
things  is  more  satisfactory  in  every  way;  and 
those  who  believe  in  the  truth  of  Divine  Reve- 
lation will  consider  it  as  hopeful  for  the  cause  of 
truth.  But  it  is  not  so  much  in  this  circumstance 
that  we  discern  the  brighter  prospects  which 
the  present  offers  us,  but  rather  in  the  fact  that 
unbelief  has  now  run  its  course  and  exhausted 
all  its  armory  in  its  assaults  upon  the  faith.  To 
the  statement  that  religion  has  had  its  day,  and 
must  now  pass  away  and  give  place  to  natural 
knowledge,  we  oppose  the  assertion  that  un- 
belief has  had  its  day;  that  it  has  tried  one 
weapon  after  another  against  the  walls  of  the 
City  of  God,  and  that  not  one  of  them  has  pros- 
pered ;  that  they  have  so  visibly  failed  that  one 
after  another  has  been  cast  away,  and  that  there 
remains  nothing  for  those  who  would  continue 
the  assault,  but  the  use  of  arms  which  have 
already  been  found  ineffectual,  and  which  have 
been  already  rejected  as  useless  by  the  soldiers 
of  the  army  of  unbelief. 

We  go  further.  When  we  review  the  past 
history  of  the  criticism  that  has  sought  to  un- 
dermine the  foundations  of  Divine  Revelation, 
we  not  only  behold  the  evidences  of  victory  to 
the  cause  of  truth,  but  we  see  that  the  Church 
has  learned  much  and  gained  much  in  the  con- 
flict.    We  find  out,  what  we  might  have  antici- 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.    27 


Jettcr    the 

a  state  of 
way;    and 
inc  Revc- 
c  cause  of 
:umstancc 
:ts  which 
i  fact  that 
exhausted 
Liith.     To 
day,  and 
o  natural 
that  un- 
tried one 
Is  of  the 
las  pros- 
that  one 
lat  there 
continue 
ch  have 
ch  have 
soldiers 

he  past 
:  to  un- 
'clation, 
ctory  to 
Church 
he  con- 
antici- 


pated if  we  had  been  wiser,  that  every  form 
of  error  which  has  opposed  itself  to  the  faith 
of  Christ  has  cither  contained  some  precious 
germ  of  truth,  or  has  over  against  it  some 
partial  error  which  has  attached  itself  to  certain 
representations  of  the  faith. 

It  was  a  wise  remark  of  a  French  Bishop, 
that  we  must  not  hurl  anathemas  at  the  natural 
order,  and  that  we  must  respect  human  reason 
at  the  same  time  that  we  make  it  feel  its  weak- 
ness and  its  impotence.  \Vc  believe  that  this 
is  one  of  the  most  valuable  lessons  that  are 
impressed  upon  us  by  the  past  history  of  un- 
belief If  it  has  shown  us  its  weakness  and 
the  weakness  of  its  origin,  it  has  also  taught 
us  to  discover  some  of  our  own  weaknesses 
and  errors.  If  it  has  shattered  itself  against 
the  fortifications  which  it  sought  in  vain  to 
destroy,  it  has  left  among  the  heaps  of  rubbish 
which  are  strewn  around  the  City  of  God  some 
precious  jewels  which  may  be  set  in  the  walls 
of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem. 

During  the  past  hundred  years  the  history 
of  unbelief  has  passed  through  three  distinct 
phases,  corresponding  with  Comte's  three  stages 
of  human  thought,  —  the  theological,  the  meta- 
physical, and  the  positive.  In  adopting  this 
period  as  the  nearest  to  our  own  times,  it  is 
by  no  means  intended  to  be  implied  that  the 
same  lessons  are  not  deducible  from  other 
periods  of  Christian  history.     The  whole   his- 


j$ 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


111! 


ih  \ 


tory  of  unbelief  in  all  ages  partakes  of  the  same 
changing  and  uncertain  chr.racter.  But  there 
is  a  special  advantage  in  selecting  a  period 
which  can  be  surveyed  without  any  consider- 
able difficulty,  —  a  period  in  which  the  modes 
of  thought  correspond  more  nearly  with  our  own 
than  those  by  which  earlier  ages  were  character- 
ized, and  the  changes  of  which  can  be  grasped 
and  exhibited  with  comparative  ease. 

These  three  stages,^  then,  —  the  theological, 
the  metaphysical,  and  the  positive, —  represent 
the  different  phases  of  unbelief,  from  the  publi- 
cation of  the  '*  Wolfcnbiittel  Fragments  "^  (a  con- 
venient starting-point),  in  1778,  to  the  present 
day.  Let  us  remember  that  these  fragments 
appeared  in  their  complete  form  forty  years 
after  the  publication  o*'  Butler's  "  Analogy " 
(1736);  that  they  were  being  issued  at  the  time 
of  the  death  of  David  Hume,  when  the  English 
unbeliever  Thomas  Paine  (i 737-1 809)  was  about 
forty  years  of  age,  and  about  twenty  years  before 
the  publication  of  Paley's  "  Evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity" (1794).  It  might  seem,  at  first  sight, 
that  a  review  of  this  period,  extending  over  the 
last  century,  would  be  far  from  encouraging, 
when  we  remember  that  each  stage  in  the  pro- 
gress of  unbelief  has  manifested  a  more  deadly 
hostility  to  the  basis  of  the  faith  of  Christ  —  that 

^  For  some  of  these  remarks  I  think  I  am  indebted  to  a 
pamphlet  by  Dr.  A.  Schweizer  which  I  no  longer  possess, 
a  See  Note  A. 


J 

4 


f  the  same 
But  there 
a  period 
consider- 
:he  modes 
:h  our  own 
character- 
'e  grasped 

leological, 

represent 

the  publi- 

^ (a  con- 
e  present 
fragments 
rty  years 
Analogy  " 

the  time 
:  English 
'as  about 
rs  before 
of  Chris- 
st  sight, 
over  the 
u  raging, 
the  pro- 
)  deadly 
t  — that 

;bted  to  a 
sess. 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF,     29 

is  to  say,  to  a  belief  in  the  supernatural  —  than 
the  period  by  which  it  was  preceded.  But  we 
shall  certainly  find,  on  a  deeper  consideration  of 
the  subject,  that  this  progress  in  antagonism 
has,  on  the  one  hand,  been  a  confession  of  weak- 
ness, and,  on  the  other  hand,  has  necessitated 
the  taking  up  of  positions  which  are  less  and 
less  capable  of  being  maintained. 

If  deism  and  rationalism  gave  place  to  pan- 
theism and  the  mythical  hypothesis  ;  if  these  in 
their  turn  gave  way  to  positivism,  materialism, 
sheer  atheism,  —  it  has  been  because  the  earlier 
positions  could  not  be  defended.  But  we  be- 
lieve that  the  last  battle-field  chosen  by  unbelief 
offers  it  the  least  favorable  vantage-ground  of 
all;  and  it  is  in  this  circumstance  that  we  ven- 
ture to  discover  a  ground  of  hope  in  looking 
forward  to  the  future  conflicts  of  the  faith  with 
unbelief 

I.  Let  us  now  try  to  understand  the  three 
forms  of  unbelief  which  have,  during  the  last 
century,  assailed  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  The 
first  was  the  rationalistic ;  and  it  was,  for  the  most 
part,  employed  by  those  who  were  called  deists. 
This  form  of  error,  in  any  wide  sense,  had  its 
birthplace  in  England  and  in  France,  not  in 
Germany.  We  are  so  accustomed  to  speak  of 
German  rationalism  (and  there  have  been  many 
German  rationalists  in  the  past  and  in  the  pres- 
ent), that  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  the  Germans, 
as  a   nation,   are   not   natively  or   distinctively 


|0 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


ii 


ll'il! 


|,i 


rationalistic.  Still,  they  worked  out  the  theorief? 
which  were  transplanted  from  other  countries, 
more  particularly  by  Reimarus  in  the  "  VVolfen- 
buttcl  Fragments  "  already  mentioned. 

The  most  powerful  German  exponent  of  this 
theory  was  Paulus,  who  applied  it  first  to  the 
exposition  of  the  Gospels,  and  afterwards  more 
particularly  to  the  explanation  of  the  life  of  our 
Lord.^  The  distinctive  character  of  the  ration- 
alistic theory  was  this,  —  that  the  Gospel  stories 
were  regarded  as  substantially  historical,  but  in 
no  case  as  having  a  supernatural  character.  The 
last  is,  of  course,  the  one  point  of  agreement 
between  these  various  schools,  —  that  they  all 
exclude  a  belief  in  supernatural  agency.  This 
assumption  lies  at  the  foundation  of  each  new 
theory,  and  is  the  explanation  of  its  origin. 

It  was  quite  natural  that  the  rationalistic  the- 
ory should  be  the  first  in  modern  times  as  in 
ancient.  It  is  difficult,  as  one  reads  the  Gos- 
pel story,  to  believe  that  the  events  which  are 
there  described  never  took  place.  Even  at  a 
later  period  than  that  to  which  we  are  now 
referring,  the  sense  of  their  historical  reality 
has  been  forced  upon  unwilling  minds.  When 
M.  Renan  went  to  visit  the  Holy  Land  before 
writing  his  "  Vie  de  Jesus,"  he  was  under  the 
influence  of  the  mythical  theory.  But  the  testi- 
mony of  the  soil  of  Palestine  was  too  strong  for 

^  His  "  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  "  appeared  in  1800 ;  his 
"  Life  of  Jesus  "  {Lcknjesti),  in  1828. 


lie  theories 
countries, 
"  VVolfen- 

Jnt  of  this 
rst  to  the 
irds  more 
life  of  our 
lie  ration- 
)el  stories 
:al,  but  in 
:ter.    The 
greement 
:  they  all 
y.      This 
-ach  new 
origin, 
istic  the- 
les  as  in 
the  Gos- 
hich  are 
^cn  at  a 
are    now 
reahty 
When 
'    before 
ider  the 
he  testi- 
rong  for 

1800;  his 


PI/ASES  AND   FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     3 1 

him.  lie  felt,  as  he  looked  on  the  Galilean  hills 
and  stood  by  the  Lake  of  Gennesareth,  that  in 
the  Gospels  he  had  to  do  with  history.  And 
so  Paulas  and  his  school  say  the  events  of  the 
Gospel  did  take  place,  but  they  were  purely 
natural,  because  there  is  no  such  thing,  and 
there  can  be  no  such  thing,  as  a  miracle.  This, 
we  must  repeat,  is  the  one  assumption  (we  had 
almost  said  the  necessary  assumption;  of  every 
school  of  unbelief;  and  the  problem  which  each 
professes  to  solve  is  to  account  for  the  form  of 
the  stories  which  are  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment without  admitting  the  notion  of  the  super- 
natural as  an  explanation  of  their  contents. 

Let  us  take  some  examples  of  the  rationalistic 
treatment  of  the  Gospel  history,  and  we  shall 
better  understand  its  methods  and  its  difficul- 
ties. Take  the  first  miracle,  the  provision  of 
wine  at  the  marriage  of  Cana  in  Galilee.  Some- 
thing of  the  kind,  the  rationalist  would  say, 
actually  did  take  place ;  but  there  was  no  mira- 
cle wrought.  According  to  Paulus,'  the  mar- 
riage took  place  in  a  poor  family.  It  was 
probably  foreseen  that  their  provision  would  be 
insufficient,  and  it  was  a  kindly  jest  on  the  part 
of  Jesus  and  His  friends  to  assist  this  poor 
family  without  hurting  their  feelings,  and  so 
they  brought  wine  with  them  and  introduced  it 

^  It  is  with  regret  that  we  mention  that  I'unscn  does  not 
greatly  differ  from  him.  See  his  "  Bibelwcrlv,"  Saint  John, 
chap.  ii. 


32 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


':!!!' 


\\m 


in  some  such  way  as  is  described  in  the  Gospel. 
So,  with  respect  to  the  miglitiest  miracle  of  all, 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  something  of 
the  kind  actually  took  place,  probably  two  or 
three  days  after  the  burial.  He  came  out  of  the 
grave  in  which  His  body  had  been  laid.  But 
then  He  had  not  really  been  dead;  He  was  only 
in  a  trance  and  had  revived. 

In  the  good  providence  of  God  —  and  here 
we  are  helped  to  understand  how  these  assaults 
upon  the  faith  are  permitted — it  came  to  pass 
that  rationalism,  with  all  its  shallowness  and 
insufficiency,  contributed  something  to  Christian 
thought.  It  compelled  men  to  think  of  God  as 
a  Being  who  governed  by  law.  It  raised  a 
serious  protest  against  the  notion  that  man's  life 
and  the  affairs  of  the  world  were  ordered  by  an 
arbitrary  or  a  capricious  will.  We  do  not  mean 
that  these  notions  found  the  slightest  justifi- 
cation in  Holy  Scripture,  or  in  any  of  the  au- 
thoritative teachings  of  the  Church.  But  there 
had  been,  in  the  ordinary  Christian  teaching  of 
the  period,  a  too  copious  use  of  language  which 
might  seem  to  sanction  theories  so  baseless; 
and  it  was  a  benefit  to  religion  that  men  should 
be  compelled  to  see  in  the  laws  of  Nature,  work- 
ing regularly  and  harmoniously,  rules  of  the 
eternal  Divine  intelligence. 

As  a  positive  system,  or  as  a  criticism  of 
Divine  revelation,  however,  rationalism  broke 
down  at  all  points.     It  was  arbitrary  and  incon- 


li 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     33 


Gospel. 

I  of  all, 

hing  of 

two  or 

It  of  the 
d.  But 
('as  only 

lid  here 
assaults 

to  pass 
2ss  and 
hristian 

God  as 
aiscd  a 
an's  life 
d  by  an 
)t  mean 

justifi- 
the  au- 

t  there 

ling  of 
which 

seless ; 

should 
work- 

of  the 

ism  of 
broke 
incon- 


sistent in  its  method,  and  it  furnished  no  real 
explanation  of  the  facts  for  which  it  professed 
to  account.  When  it  is  said  that  it  accepted  in 
substance  \\\q.  facts  of  the  Gospels,  but  discarded 
the  opinions  of  the  writers,  it  overlooked  the 
consideration  that  no  writers  liave  ever  stated 
facts  more  simply,  have  ever  introduced  less  of 
their  own  reflections  into  the  narrative  of  the 
facts.  When  rationalism  professed  to  believe 
that  such  things  happened  as  are  recorded  in  the 
Gospels,  but  that  they  were  susceptible  of  a 
natural  explanation,  it  abandoned  the  very  prin- 
ciple vhich  made  the  facts  intelligible,  and  which 
explained  the  influence  which  they  exerted  on 
those  who  witnessed  them. 

The  most  striking  illustration  of  the  utter 
failure  of  the  rationalistic  hypothesis  to  explain 
the  sacred  narrative  is  found  in  its  criticism  of 
the  resunection  of  Christ;  and  this  topic  will 
receive  careful  consideration  when  it  comes  un- 
der special  survey  in  the  last  of  these  lectures. 
But  it  began  to  be  felt  that  it  failed  entirely  to 
explain  the  power  and  influence  of  the  life  and 
work  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  men  of  his  own 
age.  If  the  rationalistic  explanation  were  the 
true  one,  it  was  impossible  to  acquit  the  central 
Person  in  those  transactions  of  the  charge  of 
imposture;  and  the  day  had  gone  by  when  such 
a  suspicion  could  be  entertained. 

The  difficulty  of  rationalism,  and  of  the 
deism  with  which  it  has    generally  been   asso- 


^^-i — —^ 


34 


IV/TXESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


iii'pi"! 


I    ! 


ciatcd,  has  been  that  it  has  ^onc  too  far  or 
not  far  enough.  The  rationahsts  were  mostly 
deists;  and  after  all,  a  personal  God  is  a  super- 
natural fact,  and  unless  we  decide  to  expel  Ilim 
from  the  government  of  the  universe.  He  will  be 
as  great  a  difficulty  in  the  world  as  lie  is  in  the 
Bible.  It  was  this  conviction,  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill  tells 
us,  that  made  him  abandon  deism  and  become 
an  atheist.  Butler,  he  says,^  convinced  him 
that  every  objection  that  could  be  urged  against 
the  difficulties  of  Christianity  was  equally  appli- 
cable to  the  Divine  government  of  the  world. 

II.  Two  causes  prepared  the  way  for  the 
viyiJiical  theory  of  Strauss,  —  the  failure  of  the 
rationalistic,  explanation,  and  the  growth  of  a 
pantheistic  habit  of  thought  which  had  for  long 
been  at  work  undermining  the  prevalent  deism. 
Neither  Taulus  nor  Strauss  originated  either  of 
the  theories  which  are  generally  connected  with 
their  names.  The  principles  which  Paulus  ap- 
plied with  more  completeness  than  had  hitherto 
been  attempted  to  the  life  of  our  Lord  had,  as 
we  have  seen,  been  set  forth  in  substance  in  the 
"  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments  "  many  years  before, 
and  at  a  still  earlier  period  by  the  English  Deists. 
So  the  germ  of  the  mythical  theory  of  Strauss 
had  been  contained  in  the  teachings  of  more 
than  one  of  the  disciples  of  Kant;  and  it  had 
been  employed  by  Eichhorn  and  De  VVette  to 


1  Three  Essays  on  Religion,  and  Autobiography. 


PJfASES  AXD  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     35 


0  far  or 

•c  mostly 
;  a  siipcr- 
s:pel  Mim 
Te  will  be 

1  is  in  the 
IMill  tells 

1  become 
iced   him 
:d  against 
illy  appli- 
world. 
T   for   the 
ire  of  the 
wth   of  a 
J  for  long 
nt  deism, 
either  of 
jctcd  with 
aulus  ap- 
hitherto 
d  had,  as 
nee  in  the 
rs  before, 
h  Deists, 
f  Strauss 
of  more 
nd  it  had 
Wette  to 

aphy. 


explain  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament.  It 
was  reserved  for  Strauss  to  apply  it  untlinchingly 
to  the  Gospel  narrative  of  the  life  of  our  Lord. 

We  must  not  withhold  a  certain  degree  of 
sympathy  from  the  spirit  which  gave  rise  to  the 
m>thical  theory.  Its  revulsion  from  the  ration- 
alistic method  was  wholesome,  but  it  was  not 
new.  Fichte,  who  was  only  a  year  younger  than 
Paulus,^  had  long  before  expressed  a  feeling 
which  had  become  general  as  to  the  free- 
thinking  which  is  identical  with  rationalism. 
"  The  empty  and  unedifying  chatter  of  the 
freethinkers,"  he  said,  "  has  had  time  enough  to 
explain  itself  completely.  It  has  explained  it- 
self, and  we  have  heard  it;  and  it  has  nothing 
new  and  nothing  better  to  say  than  what  it  has 
already  said.  Wc  are  weary  of  it;  we  feel  its 
emptiness  and  complete  nullity  when  it  comes 
in  relation  to  our  sense  of  the  I'^ternal, —  a  sense 
which  is  inextinguishable,  and  which  compels  us 
to  seek  an  object  for  it  to  rest  upon."'-^  Many 
such  protests  had  been  uttered  against  the  ra- 
tionalistic theory,  but  it  was  Strauss  who  gave 
it  its  death-blow. 

Nor  can  we  altogether  withhold  our  sympa- 
thy from  that  pantheistic  movement  of  which 
the  theory  of  Strauss  was  the  most  remarkable 


^  J,  G.  Fichte  was  born  in  1762. 

2  See  Pfleiderei's  "  Rcligionsphilosophie "  (Berlin,  1S78), 
p.  72;  Eng'.isii  translation  of  later  edition  (London,  1886), 
vol.  i.  p.  2S6. 


I 


III 


.Mill 

'Pi!  I 


i    III! 


36 


ir/nvi:ss/-:s  ro  ciikist. 


outcome.  It  is  quite  true  that,  critically  and  in- 
tellectually, pantiieisni  is  simple  atheism;  it  is 
equally  true  that  it  commonly  ends  in  formal 
atheism.  But  it  is  not  always,  or  indeed  often, 
at  first  atheistic  in  its  temper  or  in  its  purpose. 
Nay,  on  the  contrary,  it  contained  and  asserted 
a  \vei,<j[hty  truth  concerning  Almighty  God  which 
was  ignored  by  the  ordinary  deism,  and  even 
sometimes  by  the  popular  orthodox  theism, 
that  "in  Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being."  God  had  been  regarded  too  much  as  a 
Being  not  merely  distinct  from  the  material 
creation,  but  external  to  it  and  apart  from  it,  — 
to  use  philosophical  language,  as  merely  tran- 
scendent, and  not  also  immanent.  Pantheism 
bore  witness  to  His  immanence,  if  it  ignored 
His  transcendence.  It  declared  the  truth  that 
He  is  the  Life  of  all  life,  —  not  only  the  Beginner, 
but  the  living  and  life-giving  and  life-sustaining 
Preserver  of  all  existence. 

This  wa.:,  cf  course,  no  new  doctrine.  It  had 
been  taught  plainly  in  the  liible ;  it  had  been 
taught,  to  (go  back  no  further,  in  its  pantheistic 
form, — that  is,  with  the  ignoring  and  denial 
of  the  Divine  Personality,  —  by  Spinoza.  It  was 
put  forth  by  Herder  (i  744-1 803)  as  a  protest 
against  the  religious  philosophy  of  Kant  and 
his  first  followers.  "The  first  error  (TrpcoTov 
ylrevSo'i)  in  your  system,"  wrote  Herder  to  Jacobi, 
"  and  in  that  of  ail  th.^  opponents  of  Spinoza,  i.s 
this:  that  God,  as   the  great    Substance  of   all 


r//As/:s  AXD  F.irrrREs  of  uxheijef.    37 


y  and  in- 

uii  ;  it  is 
in  loriiial 
:ccl  often, 

purpose, 
I  asserted 
tod  which 
and  even 
:    theism, 

have  our 
luich  as  a 
material 
rem  it,  — 
rely  tran- 
L\antheisni 
,t  ignored 
truth  that 

Becrinner, 
sustaining 

It  had 
had  been 
anthcistic 
nd  denial 
a.  It  was 
a  protest 
Kant  and 
■  {irpoiiov 
to  Jacobi, 
jpinoza,  is 
ICC  of   all 


substances,  is  a  nonentity,  a  mere  abstract  idea. 
Me  is  not  tliis,  according  to  Spinoza,  but  the 
ever-working  One,  who  alone  cm  say  to  Him- 
self, '  I  am  who  am,  and  shall  be  in  all  the 
variations  of  My  manifestations  what  I  shall 
l)e.'  What  >'ou,  dear  people,  mean  by  your 
'  Existence  external  to  the  world,'  I  do  not 
understand."  ' 

When  we  are  proving  the  unsatisfactoriness 
of  pantheism  and  rejecting  its  conclusions  as 
destructive,  'et  us  acknowledge  the  service  which 
it  has  thus  rendered,  and  the  truth  which  it  has 
helped  to  keep  alive  in  the  world.  In  its  atti- 
tude to  revelation,  however,  it  was  far  more  hos- 
tile to  the  supernatural  princi[)le  than  deism 
had  been.  Deism,  indeed,  by  its  recognition  of 
a  personal  God,  could  never  hold  unwaveringly 
the  incredibility  of  a  miracle,  and  could  with  no 
consistency  maintain  that  one  was  impossible. 
Pantheism  was  embarrassed  by  no  such  difficul- 
ties, (jranting  its  assumption,  a  miracle  was 
inconceivable.  If  there  were  no  personal  God, 
there  could  be  no  supernatural  worker. 

But  how,  then,  are  the  facts  of  the  Christian 
religion  to  be  explained?  How  can  we  account 
for  the  early  history  of  the  Church,  the  influence 
which  it  has  exerted,  the  form  which  it  has  as- 
sumed? The  rationalistic  theory,  which  ad- 
mitted   the    general  historical  character  of  the 

^  Pflcideicr,  p.  45. 


38 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


mm 


facts,  while  denying  the  existence  of  any  mirac- 
ulous element  in  them,  when  applied  to  the 
whole  life  of  Christ  continuously,  was  speedily 
found  wanting.  And  the  clearest  demonstration 
of  its  insufficiency  came  from  the  most  pow- 
erful writer  on  the  side  of  unbelief.  Strauss's 
first  "Life  of  Jesus"  was  published  in  1835, 
only  seven  years  later  than  that  of  Paulus,^  and 
it  was  constructed  on  principles  widely  different 
from  those  of  his  predecessor.  Strauss  no 
longer  acknowledged  any  certain  historical  ele- 
ment in  the  alleged  facts  of  early  Christian  his- 
tory. According  to  him,  these  "  facts  "  were 
legends,  fables,  myths,  embodying  ideas  which 
were  then  current  in  men's  minds  and  which 
took  bodily  shape  in  these  stories.  How  far 
any  of  the  incidents  recorded  actually  took 
place,  the  mythical  school  did  not  nrcfcss  to 
know,  —  could  not  tell.  There  maybe  some  nu- 
cleus of  history  within  the  record  as  it  stands, 
but  we  cannot  be  sure  how  much  of  it  is  histor- 
ical. We  are,  of  course,  quite  sure  that  all  the 
miraculous  portion  is  fabulous,  because  a  mir- 
acle is  inconceivable  and  probably  impossible. 

But  how,  then,  did  these  stories  originate? 
They  were,  we  are  told,  the  product  of  the 
dreams  and  imaginations  of  the  people  among 
whom    they    arose,    the    embodiment    of   their 

^  But  Paiilus  had  published  his  "  Commentary  on  the  Gos- 
pels "  twenty  years  before.  He  was  much  older  than  Strauss, 
having  been  born  in  1761,  while  the  latter  was  born  in  1S08. 


t*^^ 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     39 


\\y  mirac- 
d   to   the 

speedily 
)nstration 
lost  pow- 

Strauss's 

in  1835, 
iliis,^  and 
■  different 
rauss  no 
)rical  ele- 
stian  his- 
ts  "  were 
as  which 
id  which 

How  far 

liy  took 
rcfcss  to 
5ome  nu- 
t  stands, 

s  histor- 
all  the 
a  mir- 

ssible. 

iginate? 
of  the 
among 

)f   their 

tlie  Gos- 
11  Strauss, 
1  1S08. 


Messianic  expectations,  the  incarnation  of  their 
religious  ideas. 

When  the  first  followers  of  Jesus  had  passed 
away,  —  this  is  the  notion  of  Strauss,  —  then  the 
popular  imagination  surrounded  His  memory 
with  these  miraculous  incidents,  which  never 
indeed  had  any  actual  reality,  but  which  they 
thought  fitting  to  be  associated  with  One  who 
was  the  promised  Messiah.  The  Jews  expected 
Him  to  be  of  supernatural  origin,  hence  the 
story  of  His  miraculous  conception.  He  must 
be  greater  than  all  the  prophets  who  had  pre- 
ceded Him,  and  therefore  greater  wonders  must 
be  attributed  to  His  ministry.  Moses  had  fed 
the  people  with  manna  brought  down  from 
heaven;  so  He  must  make  miraculous  provision 
for  the  bodily  wants  of  the  multitude.  Moses 
had  turned  the  waters  of  the  Nile  into  blood; 
a  prophet  greater  than  Moses  must  turn  water 
into  vine,  l-^lijah  had  ascended  to  heaven  in  a 
chariot  of  lire ;  so  Jesus  must  be  received  up  in- 
a  cloud. 

The  theory  was  worked  out  with  great  elab- 
oration and  with  unflinching  consistency;  and 
for  a  time  it  obtained  an  influence  both  exten- 
sive and  profound.  It  dazzled  men  by  its  bold- 
ness ;  it  fascinated  them  by  the  appearance  of 
spirituality.  Once  grant  its  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, and  all  difficulties  were  cleared  up.  But 
a  delusion  so  gross  could  retain  no  permanent 
hold  upon  the   minds   of  men.     The    inherent 


40 


WITNESSES  rO   CHRIST. 


ill 


■1    .    : 


rm 


111 


ill 


i  !;i!i 


iilli 


liiiiiijiii 


improbability  of  the  theory  became  apparent  al- 
most before  the  shouts  of  triumph  which  greeted 
its  promulgation  had  passed  away. 

It  is  enough  here  merely  to  glance  ^  at  the 
considerations  which  proved  fatal  to  the  myth- 
ical hypothesis.  In  the  first  place,  the  for- 
mation of  a  myth  may  be  said  to  be  a  thing 
absolutely  unknown  in  circumstances  like  those 
in  which  the  Gospel  stories  are  supposed  to  have 
arisen.  There  was  not  time  for  their  origination 
in  the  manner  asserted.  Even  if  we  bring  down 
the  dates  of  the  four  Gospels  to  the  time  as- 
signed to  them  by  Baur,  —  dates  which  are  now 
generally  abandoned  and  declared  to  be  much 
too  late  by  his  followers,  —  even  then  we  have 
the  four  universally  accepted  epistles  of  Saint 
Paul,  written  within  a  quarter  of  a  century  of 
the  death  of  Jesus ;  and  the  notion  of  a  series 
of  myths  like  those  of  the  Gospel  story  arising 
within  a  quarter  of  a  century,  or  half  a  century, 
or  even  a  much  longer  period,  is  too  absurd  to 
be  entertained. 

Besides,  it  is  not  true  to  say  that  the  ideas 
prevalent  among  the  Jews  clothed  themselves  in 
the  legendary  forms  of  ihe  Gospel  narratives. 
The  Jewish   Messianic   hopes  ^  were,   in    many 

^  An  examination  of  the  application  of  tlic  theory  to  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  will  be  found  in  the  eighth  Lecture. 

-  These  points  have  recently  been  brought  out  with  great 
fulness  by  the  Rev.  V.  11.  Stanton,  in  his  work  on  the  Jewish 
Messiah. 


■^ 

i- 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.    4 1 


respects,  widely  different  from  those  which  arc 
embodied  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  It  was  the 
facts,  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus,  which  p;ave 
rise  to  the  ideas ;  not  the  ideas  which  created 
the  histor}'.  In  addition  to  these  defects,  the 
mythical  the(  r)',  in  common  with  every  attempt 
to  destroy  the  supernatural  character  of  the 
Gospel  history,  entirely  failed  to  account  for 
the  unique  and  original  personality  of  Jesus. 
None  of  these  theories  could  account  e\'cn  for 
the  idea  of  such  a  life;  and  how  much  less  for 
its  actual  realization,  and  for  the  impression 
which  it  produced  ! 

It  is  sufficient,  for  the  present,  thus  to  have 
indicated  the  causes  of  the  weakness  and  of  the 
ultimate  and  speedy  failure  of  the  mv'thical 
h}'pothesis.  This,  too,  has  had  its  day;  and  un- 
belief has  had  to  seek  out  other  weapons  where- 
with to  assail  the  faith.  Such,  at  least,  is  the 
lesson  taught  by  the  next  kind  of  attack  made 
upon  the  sacred  Life.  It  was  in  1863  that  Rcnan 
published  his  "Vie  de  Jesus,"  which  was  fol- 
lowed almost  immediately  afterwards  hy  the 
sketch  {Character bild)  of  Schenkel,  and,  in  the 
following  year,  by  Strauss's  new  "  Life  of  Jesus 
for  the  German  People. " 


Th 


e  characteristics 


of  tl 


lese  writincfs  are 


full 


of  instruction.  As  already  mentioned,  Rcnan 
had  at  first  accepted,  almost  without  question, 
the  mythical  hypothesis;  but  the  influence  of 
the  soil  of  Palestine  was  too  stron'j;   for  him. 


42 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


II  iii 


He  tells  us  that  he  saw  around  him  a  fifth 
Gospel,^  which  made  him  feel  that  the  events 
recorded  in  the  other  four  were  real  occurrences. 
His  book  is  of  no  great  scientific  importance,  as 
it  is  founded  upon  no  clear  principle  which  re- 
ceives consistent  application  throughout.  It  is 
merely  a  brilliant,  sentimental  romance,  and 
therefore  it  has  enjoyed  an  immense  popularity ; 
but  it  has  hardly  been  taken  seriously,  and  it 
has  had  little  perceptible  influence  on  theologi- 
cal opinion,  unless  we  are  to  say  that  it  induced 
Strauss  to  modify  his  theory,  or  at  least  to  waver 
in  his  application  of  it,  as  is  most  certainly  the 
case  in  his  new  attempt  to  write  the  sacred 
Life.  And  we  think  this  honor,  wnatever  its 
worth,  cannot  be  denied  to  the  brilliant  French 
writer. 

But  it  hardly  needed  the  work  of  Renan  to 
produce  a  dificrent  attitude  towards  the  Scrip- 
ture record.  Among  the  proofs  that  the  myth- 
ical theory  was  wearing  out,  and  in  the  eyes  of 
unbelievers  becoming  untenable,  is  the  fact  that 
Schcnkcl  adopted  almost  simultaneously  a  line 
of  thought  very  similar  to  that  of  Renan ;  for 
he,  too,  wavers  between  the  rationalistic  and 
the  mythical  positions,  and  his  book,  he  tells 
us,  was  written  before  that  of  Renan  was  pub- 
lished. It  was,  in  fact,  clear  that  the  mythical 
hypothesis  could  not  be  applied  universally; 
but  it  was  equally  clear  that  the  rationalistic 
1  Vie  de  Jesus  (4th  cd.,  Paris),  Introd.,  p.  liii. 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     43 


theory  had  broken  down.  It  only  remained  to 
adopt  the  one  or  the  other,  as  either  seemed 
best  to  suit  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  em- 
ployed. And  this  is  precisely  what  Renan  at- 
tempted. Thus,  when  he  is  accounting  for  the 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  he  advocates 
a  theory  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  Strauss. 
It  was,  indeed,  a  modification  of  Strauss's  earlier 
view,  which  was  substantially  adopted  by  the 
latter  in  his  new  "Life  of  Jesus," ^  It  partakes 
both  of  the  rationalistic  and  of  the  mythical 
character,  without  being  wholly  referable  to 
either  theory. 

It  was  different  with  other  miracles, — with  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  for  example.  Mere  Renan 
was  not  embarrassed  by  the  difficulties  which 
forbid  the  application  of  the  rationalistic  hy- 
pothesis, pure  and  simple,  to  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  as  had  been  done  by  Paulus.  At  the 
grave  of  Lazarus  he  is  a  simple  rationalist.  Ac- 
cording to  his  view,  something  like  the  raising 
of  a  dead  man  did  take  place  at  Bethanv.  13ut 
it  was  a  scene  got  up  by  Jesus  and  Lazarus,  in 
order  to  impress  His  enemies,  and  perhaps  put 
a  stop  to  their  machinations,  as  they  were  now 
beginning  to  plot  against  His  life. 

Strauss  himself  takes  very  nearly  the  same 
ground  in  his  new""  Life  "  (1864}.  In  this  work, 
he  says,  he  makes  more  use  of  conscious  im- 
posture.    In    his  earlier  book  the  myths   were 

^  This  theory  will  be  considered  in  the  eighth  Lecture. 


ut  il  a 
III  I   jl 

ii 


44 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


represented  as  having  grown  up  spontaneously, 
and  clustered  around  the  slender  thread  of  true 
history,  which  was  quite  hidden  by  them.  But 
the  world  had  begun  to  deride  and  to  discard 
this  explanation,  tl:e  theologians  of  all  schools 
had  gradually  come  to  pronounce  it  untenable, 
and  Strauss  himself,  while  preferring  to  retain  it 
as  a  general  working  theory,  found  himself 
under  the  necessity  of  stopping  some  of  the 
rents  in  his  <:i>-ment  with  the  old  patches  of 
rational!.-  'i  .v'as  tolerably  clear  that  certain 

parts  of  the  u-^s  u.i  story  could  not  have  grown 
up  spontaneously.  Still  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  admii.  ai./  su;^.  na^-'iral  explanation  of 
their  origin;  and  therelore  it  became  necessary 
to  fall  back  upon  the  clumsy  devices  of  ration- 
alism and  its  theories  of  deception  which  he  had, 
at  a  former  period,  helped  to  explode.  And 
this  JLj  science  !  This  is  the  work  of  men  who 
tell  us  that  we  must  have  no  presuppositions, 
no  assumptions,  —  that  we  must  come  to  the  ex- 
amination of  facts  without  prejudice,  and  with 
the  simple  desire  to  discover  the  truth  ! 

III.  It  was  eight  years  after  the  publication 
of  his  new  "  Life  "  that  Strauss  put  forth  his  last 
work,  "The  Old  Faith  and  the  New."  ^  He  was 
now  sixty-four  years  of  age,  and  his  course  was 
nearly  run.  He  died  in  the  following  year 
(1873).  He  tells  us  that  he  hears  a  voice  within 
him,  bidding  him  give  an  account  of  his  stew- 


1  Dcr  altc  und  der  ncue  Glaubc  (1872). 


PHASES  AXD  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     45 


ardship,  and  this  is  his  response.  His  belief  is 
materialistic  atheism;  his  religion  is  the  worship 
of  the  universe;  his  hope  is  the  grave.  In  a 
pamphlet  written  near  the  time  at  which  he 
published  his  new  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  he  says  that 
he  has  never  yielded  to  the  temptation  of  de- 
ceiving himself  by  borrowing  from  another 
world.  It  could  hardly  be  otherwise;  those 
who  do  not  believe  in  a  personal  God  can  have 
no  ground  for  belief  in  a  future  life. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  last  utterances  of 
Strauss  show  a  considerably  widened  interval^ 
between  his  point  of  view  and  that  of  Christian 
faith  ;  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  such  a  criti- 
cism is  true  only  of  the  form  of  his  belief,  and 
not  of  its  substance.  In  his  earlier  works  he 
certainly  retained  the  name  of  Christian,  and 
this  he  entirely  abandoned  at  last.  lUit  there 
was  little  left  to  surrender.  This  will  be  evident 
if  we  compare  his  earlier  with  his  later  utter- 
ances. In  his  treatise  on  "  The  Transient  and 
Permanent  in  Christianity,"  -  published  soon 
after  his  first  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  he  remarks  that 
"  Christ  must  remain  for  us  the  highest  that  we 
know  in  relation  to  religion,  as  that  one  with- 
out whose  presence  in  the  mind  no  perfect  piety 
is  possible."      In  one  of  his  books  on   Ulrich 


I 


1  Even  Zcllcr  indicates  this  difference  in  liis  "Sketch  of 
Strauss,"  §  51   (Uonn,  1874). 

-  Vergangliclics  und  lileibendcs  in  Christenthum  (1S36  or 
1837). 


V^ 


i 


46 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


Huttcn^  he  says  :  "Why  should  it  not  be  ac- 
knowledged on  both  sides  that  we  now  find  in 
the  Biblical  history  only  poetry  and  truth  [^Dic/it- 
Mig  unci  WaJirJuit,  referring  to  the  title  of 
Goethe's  autobiography],  and  in  the  ecclesi- 
astical dogmas  only  significant  symbols  ;  but 
that  we  must  yield  unaltered  respect  to  the 
moral  contents  of  Christianity,  and  to  the  char- 
acter of  its  Founder,  so  far  as  His  human  form 
is  yet  to  be  recognized  under  the  incrustation 
of  miracles  in  which  the  first  historians  of  his 
life  have  enclosed  him  ?  " 

His  tone  in  "The  Old  Faith  and  the  New"  is 
quiie  different.  It  can  hardly  be  said,  however, 
that  his  principles  are  radically  changed,  al- 
though, in  his  "  Confession,"  to  the  question, 
"Are  we  still  Christians?"  he  answers  flatly, 
"  No."  For  the  Christianity  which  he  formerly 
professed  was  a  religion  which  ignored  all  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
supernatural  origin,  character,  and  w'ork  of  our 
Lord,  and  which  resolved  all  the  facts  which  we 
regard  as  historical  into  mere  ideas  or  notions ; 
and  he  believed  then,  no  more  than  in  his  later 
period,  in  a  God  whom  he  could  worship,  who 
could  hear  and  answer  his  prayer,  and  with 
whom  he  could  hold  living  communion.  In 
short,  his  tea'ching  was,  in  all  its  phases,  essen- 
tially, if  not  always  formally,  atheistic.  For  if 
that  which  we  call  God  and  the  world  are  iden- 


1  Translation  of  the  Gesprache  (1S60). 


PHASES  AND  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.     47 


tical,  or  if  God  is  a  mere  Anima  niiindi,  without 
self  consciousness,  without  intelligence,  without 
will,  then  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  there 
is  no  God,  and  so  no  soul  and  no  immortality. 
At  first  Dr.  Strauss  was  implicitly  atheistical ; 
at  the  last  he  is  so  explicitly. 

And  this  may  be  said  to  be  the  last  word  of 
unbelief,  its  final  testimony  or  confession.^  It 
has  run  its  course,  it  has  passed  through  its 
varying  phases,  —  theological,  metaphysical,  pos- 
itive; deistic,  pantheistic,  atheistic,  —  and  this  is 
its  last  word,  its  only  remaining  word.  Ration- 
alistic deism  has  said  its  say,  and  is  dead  ;  the 
mythical  theory  with  its  hazy  pantheism  has 
gone  the  same  way ;  and  now  we  are  confronted 
by  a  dull  and  dogged  atheism  which  does  not 
profess^  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  Church,  but  is  only  sure  that  they  do 
not  come  from  God,  simply  because  there  is  no 
God  for  them  to  come  from. 

To  some  it  may  appear  that  this  is,  for  the 
Christian  faith,  far  from  being  a  hopeful  state  of 
matters.  If  we  hold  a  different  opinion,  it  is 
from  no  wish  to  adopt  the  point  of  view  of  a 
thoughtless  optimism,  but  from  a  calm  review  of 
history  and  a  dispassionate  consideration  of  the 
nature  and  needs  of  man. 

1  Strauss  calls  "  Der  alte  und  der  neue  Glaube,"  cin  Bckciint- 
tiiss,  a  confession. 

2  This  is  denied.  We  shall  see,  however,  in  subsequent 
lectures,  what,  value  can  be  attached  to  the  explanations 
offered. 


SI 


I': 


T- 


48 


IVITjYESSES   to   C//AVST. 


II  t:  I 


The  Church  of  Christ  exists,  and  her  existence 
and  her  history  and  her  influence  must  be  ac- 
counted for.  Christian  civilization  exists,  and 
must  be  explained  as  to  its  sources  and  its  prog- 
ress in  the  world.  Humanity  exists,  witli  all  its 
wants  to  be  supplied,  with  all  its  many  questions 
to  h(^  answered,  with  a  heart  which  cries  out  for 
the  livini^  God,  and  which  will  need  many  pow- 
erful ariTumcnts  before  it  can  be  brought  to 
believe  that  there  is  no  God.  Man  does  not 
willingly  despair ;  at  Icas^-  he  cannot  easily  ac- 
quiesce in  a  philosophy  of  despair.  "  Hope 
springs  eternal  in  the  human  breast;  "  but  this 
is  because  there  is  in  the  human  breast  an  in- 
eradicable sense  of  God.  And  therefore  we  do 
not  believe  that  man  will  ever  abandon  the 
desire  to  know  God,  and  to  know  the  nature 
and  meaning  of  that  Gospel  which  professes 
supremely  to  be  a  message  from  Ilim.^ 

Here  is  our  hope  for  the  future.  Men  will 
not  and  cannot  abstain  from  questions  con- 
cerning God,  duty,  immortality.  We  are  con- 
tented if  they  will  go  on  asking  and  if  they  will 
hear  the  answers  which  are  given  to  their  ques- 
tions. No  wise  advocate  of  Christian  Revelation 
expects  or  desires  a  blind  and  unreflecting  ac- 
quiescence in  his  teaching.  What  we  w^ant  is 
the  most  searching  examination  into  the  truth 
of  our  testimony,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  a 
reasonable  and  well-grounded    faith.     We  have 


1  See  Note  B. 


PHASES  AXD  FAILURES  OF  UNBELIEF.       49 

not  followed  fables,  either  cunningly  clcviscd  or 
spontaneously  developed  ;  and  even  if  we  be- 
lieved the  prospects  of  the  Church  to  be  darker 
than  ever  they  were,  as  we  believe  them  to  be 
brighter  than  they  have  been  for  many  a  day, 
wc  should  remember  the  words  which  comforted 
the  most  heroic  of  Germans,  and  one  of  the 
greatest  of  men  :  "  God  is  in  the  midst  of  her, 
therefore  she  shall  not  be  removed :  God  shall 
help  her,  and  that  right  early." 


'■nil!' 

■■■iv. 


W 


-?:*- 


LECTURE    II. 


CIVILIZATION   AND   CHRISTIANITY. 


The  Gospel  in  the  World,  —  Christian  Ideal  and  Christian  Life 
contrasted. —  Has  Christianity  failed  .'  —  Modern  Civiliza- 
tion and  Christianity,  —  Opposing  Views.  —  L  The  World 
before  Ciirist  :  Claims  of  the  Ancient  World  real  ;  .Seri- 
ous Defects  ;  vitiated  by  I-lgoism.  —  Plato  and  Aristotle. 
—  Citizens,  Slaves,  llarharians,  Lncmies.  —  (Irecks  and 
Romans  alike.  —  Cicero.  —  Condition  of  various  Classes: 
I.  Women,  —  .Status,  Marriai^e,  Dependence;  2.  Working 
Classes, — Manual  Labor  thought  degrading  ;  3.  Slaves, — 
Slavery  accepted  by  the  Philoso])hers,  the  Laws  relating  to 
Slavery,  Slavery  in  Practice,  Exceptions,  Doctrine  of  Stoics. 

•  — II.  The  Need  sujiplied  :  the  Gospel  of  Human  P)rother- 
hood;  its  Toundation  in  Christ.  —  The  Kingdom  of  God; 
its  .Subjects  ;  its  Lav.'s. — Changes  effected:  i.  Condition 
of  Women  ;  2.  Laboring  Classes  ;  3.  The  Poor,  —  provided 
for  by  Christianity  ;  the  Fhnperor  Julian;  4.  Slaves,  —  Ob- 
jection that  there  is  no  Christian  Command  for  Emancipa- 
tion ;  Answer,  —  what  the  Gospel  has  done,  what  it  has  to 
do;  5.  War;  6.  I-cgislation.  —  Conclusion. 


illiii 


WHAT  has  the  Go.spel  of  Jesus  Christ  ac- 
complished for  the  world  ?  It  is  a 
fair  question.  Even  if  we  were  warned  that 
the  truth  would  certainly  meet  with  opposition, 
even  if  the  very  nature  of  the  message  carried 
within  itself  the  prophecy  of  conflict,  we  are 
still  bound  to  believe,  we  have  been  taught 
to  believe,  that  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel 
throughout    the   world    could    not    be   without 


CIVILIZATIOX  AXD   CIIRISTIAyiTW 


51 


^rcat  and  lasting  and  far-reaching  effects.  Jesus 
Christ  is  tlic  true  King  of  men.  lie,  when  He 
is  lifted  up,  is  appointed  to  draw  all  men  unto 
H' "'  The  heathen  have  been  given  to  Mini 
as  .  heritage,  and  the  utmost  ends  of  the 
earth  for  a  possession. 

No  one  can  maintain  that  the  Gospel  has 
been  without  effect.  Throughout  the  whole  of 
what  we  call  the  civilized  world,  it  has  sup- 
planted the  ancient  faiths  of  heathendom  and 
has  become  the  dominant  religion.  Nearly  all 
civilized  nations  call  themselves  Christian.  Un- 
der the  shadow  of  the  Cross  no  other  faith  can 
be  said  to  flourish.  In  nearly  all  the  places 
where  prayer  is  wont  to  be  made,  it  is  in  the 
N.'  of  Jesus  that  all  men  bow,  and  that  Name  is 
ac  -  itcd  to  be  above  all  other  names.  So  much 
may  be  confidently  alleged  by  the  disciple  of 
Christ,  and  the  unbeliever  cannot  gainsay  it- 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  mere  profes- 
sion of  Christianity,  important  as  it  is,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  a  complete  answer  to  the  question  : 
What  has  the  Gospel,  what  has  Christ,  done  for 
mankind  ?  Not  every  one  that  calls  Him  Lord 
will  have  a  right  to  a  place  in  His  Kingdom. 
It  is  not  enough  to  be  hearers  of  His  word. 
This  is  nothing,  perhaps  worse  than  nothing, 
unless  we  are  also  doers  of  it.  In  short,  it  is 
the  participation  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  which 
constitutes  and  evinces  a  true  and  living  re- 
lation between   Himself  and  His  professed   fol- 


H 


'M 


ill 


52 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


^li.i'il 


fill! 


.il.;SI!i. 


lowcrs.  And  it  is  this  conformity  of  men  to 
the  mind  and  character  of  Christ  which  alone 
can  be  accepted  as  satisfactory  evidence  that 
the  Gospel  has  worked  in  the  world  those  bene- 
ficial results  which  it  claims  to  have  the  power 
to  produce. 

Every  one  can  see  that  we  are  here  entering 
upon  an  inquiry  more  difficult  than  we  were  at 
first  prepared  for.  Not  only  is  it  almost  impos- 
sible to  determine  the  true  quality  of  human 
actions,  conduct,  character  ;  but  we  must  be 
prepared  for  the  attempt  which  will  be  made 
by  our  adversaries  to  establish  a  violent  contrast 
between  the  ideal  of  the  Gospel  and  the  real 
of  actual  Christian  life.  It  is  easy  enough  to 
show  that  such  a  contrast  exists.^  Whether  we 
take  the  character  and  life  of  Jesus  Christ 
Himself,  or  the  ideal  which  He  prescribes,  or 
the  commands  and  precepts  by  which  He  re- 
quires that  we  shall  be  guided,  we  cannot  deny 
that  the  ordinary  life  of  professing  Christians 
falls  far  short  of  His  example  and  His  rule. 
Men  as  a  whole,  —  the  men  who  are  living 
around  us,  —  could  not  be  accurately  described 
as  Christlike.  Nay,  further,  such  a  description 
would  not  apply  with  any  amount  of  exactness  to 
the  inner  circle  of  those  who  seem  to  be  making 

^  Since  these  lines  were  written,  the  writer  has  seen  Mr. 
Cotter  Morison's  "  Service  of  Man  "  (sf-e  Notes  B,  E,  and  G). 
Mr,  Morison  gives  many  proofs  of  the  prevalence  of  moral  evil 
during  the  Christian  period  ;  but  he  takes  litilc  notice  of  what 
Christianitv  has  actuallv  effected. 


CIVILIZATION  AXD   CHRISTIANITY. 


53 


,1   more   strenuous   endeavor  than    most   other 
men,  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  Jesus  Christ. 

What  inference  shall  we  deduce  from  these 
admitted  facts  ?  Shall  we  allow  that  the  ene- 
mies of  the  Cross  have  a  right  to  say  that  the 
Gospel  has  been  a  failure  ?  Supposing  that 
we  had  no  interest  in  the  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion, is  this  the  answer  which  we  should  judge 
to  be  a  true  one  ?  Certainly  not  ;  and  this 
for  various  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  we 
never  expect,  and  we  have  no  right  to  expect, 
the  real  to  correspond  exactly  with  the  ideal. 
It  is  a  great  matter  if  men  really  do  hold  fast 
the  ideal,  if  in  any  measure  they  keep  it  be- 
fore their  eyes  and  strive  towards  its  realization. 
And  this,  at  least,  may  be  said  for  Christian 
society,  —  it  has  before  it  a  higher  ideal  of 
character,  aim,  duty,  than  has  ever  been  known 
outside  the  boundaries  of  Christendom.^ 

And  then  there  are  other  questions  that  would 
have  to  be  answered.  For  example,  this  ques- 
tion :  Not  merely  are  men  now  made  perfect 
by  the  doctrines  and  influences  of  Christianity; 
but  arc  they  better  or  worse  than  they  were 
without  the  Gospel  ?  Are  Christian  countries 
better  than  countries  which  are  not  Christian  ? 
Are  those  Christian  countries  better  or   worse 


'  The  objection  that  Christians  are  worse  than  their  creed 
is  surely  a  strong  argument  in  behalf  of  the  Gospel.  What 
a  poor  system  would  that  be  which  lowered  its  ideal  and  rule 
of  life  to  the  level  of  the  life  of  its  adherents  I 


i  "1 


54 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


in  which  the  Christianity  is  most  hkc  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  ]3ible,  and  in  whicli  the  sacred 
vohime  has  freest  course?  Arc  the  Christian 
portions  of  the  world  better  since  they  became 
Christian  than  they  were  when  they  were  hea- 
then, or  are  they  worse  ?  Do  the  best  men 
among  us  attribute  the  good  in  themselves  to 
the  word  and  the  power  of  Christ,  or  not  ? 

Now,  some  of  these  questions  may  be  an- 
swered with  at  least  an  approximation  to  cer- 
tainty ;  and  if  they  can  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative,  then  the  verdict  must  be  givxn  in 
favor  of  Christianity,  It  is  something  of  this 
kind  that  we  are  now  to  attempt.  We  propose 
to  show  that  what  we  call  modern  civilization,  in 
its  prevailing  ideas  and  sentiments,  in  its  benefi- 
cent legislation,  in  its  general  spirit  of  mercy 
and  compassion,  is  the  creation  of  Christianity ; 
that  it  is  infinitely  superior  to  the  civilization 
of  pre-Christian  times,  differing  from  that  not 
merely  in  degree  but  in  kind,  and  that  we  have 
therefore  in  this  very  civilization  a  standing  evi- 
dence of  the  beneficial  effects  of  the  Gospel. 

Before  advancing  to  the  particular  proofs  of 
these  assertions,  we  must  not  ignore  the  theories 
which  have  been  advanced  in  opposition  to 
that  which  we  maintain.  For  instance,  it  has 
been  held  by  one  school,^  that  religion,  and  more 
particularly  Christianity,  has  been  so  far  from 

1  Dr.  Draper  may  be  mentioned  as  a  leading  representative 
of  this  class. 


CIVILIZATION  AND   CIIKISriANITY, 


55 


if 


favoring  the  progress  of  the  higher  civilization 
that  it  has  been  a  positive  hindrance  to  it  ; 
and  a  contrast  has,  in  this  respect,  been  drawn 
between*  the  narrowing  and  depressing  influen- 
ces of  the  Reformation  as  compared  with  the 
genial  and  hberahzing  tendencies  of  the  classical 
Renaissance.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
admitted  that  religion  and  civilization  have  gone 
hand  in  hand  ;  but  it  has  been  represented  ^ 
that  the  religious  beliefs  of  an  age  have  been 
the  outcome  of  the  civilization  of  the  age  rather 
than  the  principal  influence  by  which  it  was 
moulded. 

To  those  who  possess  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  the  movement  known  as  the  Renaissance, 
little  need  be  said  as  to  its  power  to  put  new  life 
into  human  society.  But  the  best  answer  to  this 
and  other  theories,  the  best  evidence  that  the 
higher  principles  and  the  nobler  elements  of  mod- 
ern civilization  arc  the  outcome  of  Christian- 
ity, will  be  found  in  a  simple  consideration  of 
historical  facts.  When  we  recall  the  true  char- 
acter of  the  heathen  civilization  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  when  we  consider  the  principles  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ,  and  when  we  further  contem- 
plate the  actual  civilization  of  the  world  in  the 
midst  of  which  we  arc  living,  we  shall  then  be 
able  to  say  how  far  mankind  has  been  raised 
and  ennobled  by  the  Gospel,  and  whether  that 

1  This  is  the  general  view  o£  Mr.  Buckle  in  his  "  History  of 
Civilization." 


•If  « 
w. 

^^ 

'A 

■,>ii " 


50 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


I!  .Ill: 


Gcspel  was  the  mere  development  of  principles 
already  working  in  the  world,  or  was  a  new  life 
and  a  new  spirit  brought  into  the  bosom  of 
humanity  by  the  revelation  of  God. 

I.  It  is  hardly  needful  to  say  that  such  an 
attempt  involves  no  disrespect  to  the  earlier 
ages  of  the  world,  no  effort  to  misrepresent  any- 
thing that  was  good  or  true  or  beautiful  in  their 
achievements,  no  failure  to  render  homage  to  the 
great  minds  which  they  produced.  Rather,  from 
our  own  point  of  view,  shall  wc  often  wonder 
that  they  did  so  much,  and  that,  in  their  grop- 
ings  after  truth,  they  did  not  go  astray  more 
widely  from  the  absolute  rule  of  truth  and 
righteousness. 

The  true,  the  beautiful,  and  the  good,  —  these 
were  the  three  watchwords  of  the  thinkers  of 
ancient  Greece;  and  upon  these  all  true  human 
development,  culture,  and  civilization  must  ulti- 
mately depend.  The  intellectual  or  speculative, 
the  aesthetic,  and  the  moral  principles  are  all  of 
importance ;  but  the  last  is  the  greatest  of  the 
three.  Perhaps  the  sentiment  of  the  beautiful 
has  never  been  more  exquisitely  embodied  than 
in  the  literature  and  art  of  Greece.  And  if  we 
cannot  place  their  attainment  of  the  truth  on  the 
same  level  with  their  realization  of  the  beautiful, 
there  has,  perhaps,  seldom  been  manifested  a 
more  ardent  devotion  to  its  pursuit  than  was 
found  among  the  nobler  intellects  of  this  great 
people.    It  is  when  we  contemplate  their  notions 


CIVILIZATION  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 


57 


of  the  good  that  we  see  how  far  they  fell  short  of 
the  Christian  idea.  What  is  the  notion  which 
now,  by  universal  consent,  we  place  in  the  fore- 
most rank  of  human  qualities?  What  is  the 
principle  out  of  which  we  develop  all  other  vir- 
tues and  graces  and  excellences?  It  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  love,  benevolence,  unselfishness,  —  call 
it  by  what  name  you  please,  —  the  principle  by 
which  we  recognize  that  all  other  men  have 
the  same  rights  and  privileges  as  ourselves,  —  the 
principle  which  bids  each  man  do  unto  another 
as  he  would  have  that  other  do  unto  himself 
That  principle  was  utterly  unknown,  as  a  funda- 
mental virtue,  by  heathen  antiquity.^ 

When  Plato ^  laid  down  the  four  cardinal  vir- 
tues of  Wisdom,  Courage,  Temperance,  Justice, 
he  found  no  place  in  his  scheme  for  love,  or  for 
the  humility  and  self-sacrifice  which  are  its  nec- 
essary attendants.  And  although  it  might  seem 
that  in  Plato  and  in  Ari^:totle,  and  more  partic- 
ularly in  the  former,  the  individual  was  subordi- 
nated to  the  community  by  the  idea  of  the  State, 
a  deeper  consideration  of  the  subject  will  show 
that  the  selfish  principle  was  strengthened  rather 
than  weakened  by  this  idea.  It  is  true,  indeed, 
that,  in  Plato's  view,  the  moral  life  in  a  well- 
ordered  State  was  the  highest  conceivable  moral- 

^  I  am  under  obligations,  in  this  lecture,  to  some  sermons  of 
Adolplie  Monod,  published  after  his  death,  and  still  more  to  a 
lecture  by  Dr.  Mangold,  of  Bonn. 

-  Republic,  book  iv.  (cd.  Baiter,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  113  ss.). 


■    \'n  11 

m 

*i< 

n  1 

;ir 

■  ;|| 

1    f'"  'h 

'  /!  p 

■     ;V..  ■■   ;  4       .ft 

ii&ti-A 

58 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


liliS 


ity,  and  that  in  the  ancient  State  every  citizen 
was  bound  to  sacrifice  himself,  if  necessary,  to 
lay  down  his  life,  for  the  g^ood  of  the  community, 
and  thus  it  might  seem  that  individualism  and 
selfishness  were  condemned;  yet  it  must  be  re- 
membered, on  the  other  side,  that  everything 
which  the  citizen  expended  for  the  State  he  re- 
ceived back  again  with  interest.  The  Grecian 
State,  and  it  was  the  same  with  the  Roman, 
recognized  the  citizen  alone  as  having  any  civil 
rights  or  privileges.  All  other  members  of  the 
human  race  were  regarded,  if  foreigners,  as 
barbarians  or  enemies;  if  dwelling  within  the 
borders  of  the  State,  as  in  a  state  of  pupillage, 
dependence,  or  servitude,  as  having  no  claim  to 
any  civil  privileges  which  belonged  to  the  citi- 
zens alone.  Thus  a  system  which  seemed  likely 
to  destroy  selfishness  and  build  up  a  religion 
of  humanity,  turns  out  to  be  merely  constitutive 
of  a  privileged  and  limited  aristocracy ;  all  who 
are  outside  this  privileged  class  are  regarded  as 
hardly  belonging  to  the  same  order  in  creation. 
In  this  respect  Greeks  and  Romans  were  alike. 
In  their  view  a  foreigner  was  a  barbarian  and 
an  enemy,  to  whom  no  participation  in  human 
rights  was  to  be  allowed.  Even  Plato  ^  and 
Aristotle  —  the  noblest  representatives  of  Greek 
thought,  and  the  pioneers  of  the  philosophy  of  the 
world  —  had   no  other  judgment  to  pronounce 


1  Republic,  book  v.  (cd.  Baiter,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  156  ss.).     Aris- 
totle, Politics,  i.  2. 


CIVILIZATION  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 


59 


on  the  position  of  foreigners ;  and  Cicero,^  the 
mouthpiece  of  Roman  society,  echoes  their  sen- 
timent, dcchiring  that  barbarians  might,  Avithout 
scruple,  be  i<iiied,  and  sold  as  slaves.  And  in 
this  matter  they  were  not  mere  promulgators  of 
a  theory  which,  like  many  parts  of  the  "  Repub- 
lic "  of  Plato,  was  hardly  regarded  as  capable  of 
realization  ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  barbarians  taken 
in  war  were  sold  as  slaves,  and  compelled  to 
engage  in  the  gladiatorial  conflicts,  in  which 
multitudes  were  slain  for  the  amusement  of  the 
people  in  Rome. 

But  it  was  not  merely  towards  foreign  barba- 
rians that  this  cynical  disregard  for  all  men  who 
were  outside  the  sacred  boundaries  of  citizen- 
ship was  manifested.  Whole  classes  of  their 
own  people,  among  Greeks  and  Romans  alike, 
were  refused  the  recognition  of  any  privileges 
save  those  which  their  masters  might  concede 
to  them,  not  as  rights,  but  as  acts  of  charity. 

I.  Among  these  we  might  mention,  first,  as 
being  in  our  own  view  the  most  grievous,  the 
condition  of  luovicn  among  the  ancients.  Aris-  > 
totlc,^  indeed,  commends  the  Greeks  for  not 
placing  their  women  on  a  level  with  slaves,  as  is 
done  by  the  Eastern  nations ;  but  the  rank  as- 
signed to  them  was  of  the  lowest.  Thus  we  find 
Socrates^  asking   his   disciple  Critobulus   with 


.f^i.ii 


1  De  Officiis,  i.  12;  iii.  ii. 

2  Politics,  i.  2. 

3  Xenophon,  Economics,  c.  3,  §  J2. 


|;»''''PT 


60 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


f  i  '      ' 


whom  he  would  rather  not  converse  than  with 
his  wife,  and  the  disciple  immediately  answering, 
"  No  one."  Any  intellectual  or  moral  fellowship 
between  man  and  wife  was  made  impossible  by 
the  subordinate  position  assigned  to  the  latter. 
The  wife,  in  this  system  of  things,  was  merely 
regarded  as  the  mother  of  future  citizens  and 
the  manager  of  the  household,  —  in  short,  as  a 
kind  of  servant  to  her  husband.  So  long  as  the 
chief  virtues  of  the  married  woman  were  com- 
prised in  the  words  of  the  Roman  epitaph,  "  She 
sat  in  her  house  and  span  wool,"  ^  her  place  of 
subjection  was  inevitable.  And  this  was  fully 
recognized  in  the  laws  and  traditions  of  the 
country. 

The  oldest  form  of  Roman  marriage  was  the 
purchase  of  a  wife.  The  daughter  passed,  like 
a  household  chattel,  from  the  hands  of  her  father 
to  those  of  her  husband.  She  never  had  any 
idea  of  independence ;  and  after  the  death  of 
her  husband  she  came  under  the  protection  of 
his  relatives.  Indeed,  so  completely  was  a  wife 
regarded  as  the  mere  property  of  her  husband, 
that  he  might  transfer  her  to  another  man ;  and 
we  find  Cato  the  elder  leaving  his  wife  to  his 
friend  Hortensius.  In  the  later  period  of  the 
Emperors,  while  the  condition  of  wives  seemed 
to  be  improved,  it  was  in  fact  much  worse. 
•  They  were  then  regarded,  indeed,  as  possessing 
a  measure  of  independence;   but,  unaccustomed 


1  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  vol.  i.  no.  1,007. 


CIVILIZATION  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


6l 


as  they  were  to  a  sense  of  their  own  dignity, 
they  turned  this  new-found  Hberty  to  licentious- 
ness, abandoning  themselves  to  senseless  luxury, 
to  shameless  libertinagc,  —  making  amends,  as 
it  were,  for  the  long  oppression  of  their  sex. 
Doubtless  there  were  brilliant  exceptions  in 
every  age ;  but  the  brightness  with  which  they 
shine  out  on  the  page  of  Roman  history  reveals 
the  darkness  by  which  they  were  surrounded. 

2.  What,  again,  was  the  condition  of  the 
artisan  and  the  trading  classes  in  this  state  of 
things?  One  of  the  fundamental  ideas  of  modern 
civilization,  that  every  honorable  kind  of  labor 
ennobles  a  man,  was  unknown  to  the  heathen 
world.  To  those  v  hovv^ere  employed  in  any  kind 
of  manual  labor  the  highest  rights  of  humanity 
could  not  be  conceded,  because  they  were  en- 
gaged In  the  daily  struggle  for  the  necessaries 
of  life,  and  so  were  unable  to  give  their  whole 
powers  to  the  service  of  the  State.  They  were 
regarded  as  in  a  sense  the  slaves  of  the  public, 
and  as  slaves  they  were  held  incapable  of  any 
real  elevation  of  mind.  It  is  in  the  most  matter- 
of-course  manner  that  Plato  and  Aristotle  de- 
clare that  true  virtue  is  not  to  be  expected  of 
those  who  have  to  work,  —  at  the  most  only  the 
servile  virtue  of  obedience ;  and  Plato  adds  that 
it  is,  after  all,  a  matter  of  indifference  whether 
a  manual  laborer  live  a  virtuous  or  a  vicious 
life,  as  it  is  only  the  virtue  of  the  ruling  and  law- 
giving classes  that  is  a  matter  of  importance. 


m 


6a 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


% 

1 

m 

|H| 

i  lila 

Can  the  workman,  then,  be  regarded  as  a  man, 
as  a  human  being?  ^  But  how  did  it  fare  with 
him  when  he  was  sick  and  miserable  and  de- 
pendent upon  foreign  aid?  It  was  well  for  him 
when  he  coukl  find  a  pkice  of  shelter  and  pro- 
tection ;  he  had  no  claim  upon  the  State ;  and 
whether  he  lived  or  died,  society  would  acknowl- 
edge no  duty  to  hold  out  to  him  a  helping 
hand.'-^ 

3.  But  there  was  a  class  with  whom  it  fared 
worse  than  with  the  laborer,  —  the  slaves.  The 
institution  of  slavery,  with  all  its  attendant  evils, 
had  been  so  familiar  to  the  people  that  even  the 
philosophers  had  come  to  look  upon  it  as  an 
ordinance  of  Nature.  It  appeared  to  them  that 
two  quite  different  classes  of  mer  were  brought 
into  the  world,  —  the  one  qualified  for  the  enjoy- 
ment of  liberty;  the  other  actually  disqualified 
for  this  privilege,  and  thereby  condemned  to 
bondage.  These  men  had  no  claim  to  be  recog- 
nized as  among  the  privileged  classes.*^  Hence 
it  is  that  Varro,^  in  his  work  on  agriculture, 
expressly  classes  the  slaves  along  with  beasts  of 
burden,  but  only,  from  their  having  the  gift  of 
speech,  as  capable  of  a  higher  kind  of  service; 
and  even  Cicero,^  in  writing  to  his  friend  Atticus, 

1  Aristotle,  Politics,  iii.  4;  viii.  2;  vii.  9.  Plato,  Republic, 
book  iv,  (ed.  Baiter,  vol.  xiii.  p.  104). 

2  Plautus,  Trinummus,  Act  ii.  Sc.  2,  vv.  58,  59. 

8  Plato,  Laws,  vi.  (ed.  Baiter,  vol.  xiv.  p.  186).  Aristotle, 
Politics,  i.  3-6. 

<  Dc  re  rustica,  i.  17.  ^  Ad  Atticum,  i.  12. 


i 


11 


iHliiiJ./!! 


CIVILIZATION  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


63 


thinks  he  is  bound  to  offer  some  excuse  because 
of  his  excessive  grief  at  the  death  of  his  slave 
Sositheus. 

And  this  theory  of  the  philosophers  was  em- 
bodied in  the  laws  of  the  country.  Roman  law 
declared  the  slave  to  be  the  entire  property  of 
his  master,  a  thing  which  could  be  dealt  with  in 
the  same  manner  as  any  other  piece  of  property  ; 
and  it  offered  to  the  slave  no  protection  of  any 
kind.  Husband  and  wife  might  be  separated, 
children  sold  away  from  their  parents,  the  slave 
Hiight  be  maimed  or  put  to  death  by  his  master, 
without  the  restraint  of  any  penalty  to  follow. 
And  the  legal  condition  of  the  slave  was  in  no  de- 
grce  ameliorated  in  practice.  In  the  early  days 
of  Greece  and  Rome  it  seems  to  have  been  dif- 
ferent. To  the  simple  tiller  of  the  ground  the 
slave  was  a  kind  of  companion  or  partner  in 
work.  But  in  the  later  days  of  Roman  greatness 
the  state  of  things  was  altered.  The  number 
of  slaves  had  increased  immensely  throughout 
the  Empire ;  and  the  sternest  measures  became 
necessary  in  order  to  keep  them  in  a  state  of 
subjection.  Consequently  they  were  treated  with 
the  greatest  severity.  The  owners  were  not  all 
equally  harsh.  Few,  probably,  rose  to  the  height 
of  inhumanity  mentioned  by  Juvenal  as  having 
been  shown  by  a  Roman  master  when  he  was 
entreated  to  spare  an  innocent  slave  whom  he 
had  condemned  to  death.  "  What  I  "  was  the 
reply,  "  do  you  consider  a  slave  to  be  a  human 


64 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


being?  Be  he  innocent  or  not,  this  is  my  will 
and  my  command.  My  will  is  law."  ^  Probably, 
also,  there  were  not  many  women  so  inhuman  as 
those  who,  accustomed  to  the  bloody  sights  of 
the  circus,  made  their  female  slaves  wait  upon 
them  naked  to  the  waist,  and  punished  them  for 
any  misconduct  or  mistake  by  pricking  them 
with  a  bodkin  or  a  needle  until  the  blood  came; 
and  yet  there  were  cases  in  which  old  and  worn- 
out  slaves  were  driven  from  their  home  and  left 
to  die  of  hunger  and  nakedness  by  the  wayside.^ 

It  is  quite  true  that  some  men,  here  and  there 
in  this  ancient  society,  gained  glimpses  of  higher 
truths  which  contained  within  them  prophecies 
of  emancipation  and  liberty.  But  what  was  the 
real  effect  of  these  guesses  and  gropings  after 
the  knowledge  of  God  and  man?  Some  there 
were  who  found  their  way  to  a  perception  of 
the  unity  of  God,  and  taught  that  all  men,  as 
His  creatures,  were  alike  manifestations  of  the 
Divine,  and  were  bound  to  recognize  each  other 
as  such.  But  there  was  no  foundation  for  the 
doctrine  but  the  speculations  of  philosophers, 
and  it  seemed  to  men  in  general  as  a  dream, 
and  it  passed  away  like  a  cloud  which  hardly 
let  fall  a  drop  of  dew  upon  the  earth  to  slake 
its  thirst. 

The  stoics  ^  might  protest  against  the  current 

1  Satire,  vi.  vv.  222  ss. 

2  Plut.ircli,  Lives,  vol.  ii.     Cicero,  Cato  Major,  c.  4,  5. 

3  Seneca,  De  Beneficiis,  ill.  i8-:C. 


CIVILIZA  TIOX  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


notions  of  liberty  and  bondafifc;  mit^lit  declare 
that  the  man  who  was  in  bondat^e  to  his  passions 
was  the  real  slave,  while  he  who  was  kept  in 
bondage  by  his  fellow-man  and  }-et  was  pos- 
sessed of  wisdom,  was  indeed  the  free  man. 
Hut  such  doctrines,  however  they  mi<;ht  raise 
and  comfort  the  individual,  made  no  difference 
in  the  general  condition  of  slaves. 

Seneca,  one  of  the  noblest  representatives 
of  the  great  stoic  school,  could  declare  that 
"  Man  should  be  a  sacred  thing  to  man ;  "  ^ 
but  the  words  passed  unheeded,  or  if  they 
extorted  a  momentary  tribute  of  admiration 
or  of  acquiescence,  they  had  no  practical  sig- 
nificance and  led  to  no  results.  Somethinir 
more  was  needed  than  such  occasional  testimo- 
nies,—  something  that  rested  on  deeper  founda- 
tions and  was  commended  by  more  powerful 
sanctions. 

II.  That  Something;  which  the  heathen  phi- 
losopher longed  for,  which  should  bring  home  to 
men  a  sense  of  their  brotherhood,  was  even  then 
in  the  midst  of  that  degraded  Roman  society, 
although  for  the  most  part  they  knew  it  not. 
A  contemporary  of  Seneca,  the  converted  Jew, 
Sau  Tarsus,  Paul  the  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ, 
was  declaring  to  all  who  would  hear  him  the 
Gospc'  )f  human  brotherhood,  not  for  Greek  or 
or  Roman  or  for  Jew  only,  but  for  the  whole 
human  race,  —  a  doctrine  which  was  destined  to 

1  "  Homo  sacra    ^  h  homini."  —  Seneca,  Ep.  93.  t^t,. 


zrvJt*^ 


''r-<<^v<4*v 


66 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


J- 


throw  down  the  barriers  which  separated  man 
from  man  and  class  from  class,  and  to  declare 
that  there  were  no  real  privileges  and  blessings 
known  upon  earth  which  were  not  open  to  the 
whole  family  of  man. 

But  upon  what  foundation  could  this  new 
truth  be  made  to  rest?  And  how  could  it  be 
hoped  that  it  would  find  free  course  among  a 
race  so  little  prepared  for  its  reception?  The 
answer  to  the  question  is  found  in  the  manifes- 
tation and  in  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ  here 
upon  earth. 

What  was  He  in  His  own  person?  He  was 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  The  I'>ternal  Word, 
one  with  the  Father,  had  taken  into  indissoluble 
imion  with  Himself  the  nature  of  man,  —  not  of 
this  man  or  of  that  man,  not  the  nature  of  any 
privileged  nation  or  family,  but  the  nature  of 
our  common  humanity.  Here  was  the  greatest 
privilege,  the  privilege  of  union  with  God  ac- 
corded to  mankind.  There  is  nothing  higher  to 
which  men  can  attain,  and  there  is  no  one  who 
cannot  attain  to  it.  Here  at  one  blow  is  shat- 
tered the  Old  World  selfishness  which  doomed 
the  larger  portion  of  m.ankind  to  a  state  of  de- 
pendence and  bondage.  Men  are  brethren,  and 
as  such  cannot  be  regarded  as  essentiallv  differ- 
ent in  their  nature  and  capacities. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  first  manifestation, 
which  received  its  full  meaning  in  the  life  and 
work  and  sacrifice  and  death  and   resurrection 


CIVILIZATION  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 


67 


of  the  God-man,  there  was  proclaimed  a  King- 
dom of  God  upon  the  earth,  over  which  the 
DeHvererwas  appointed  to  reign,  and  into  which 
all  men  were  to  be  admitted  as  subjects.  And 
the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  was  in  a  large  measure 
realized  on  the  very  day  of  its  inauguration. 
On  that  first  Christian  Pentecost,  men  from  all 
parts  of  the  world  heard  the  glad  message,  and 
pressed  into  the  Kingdom  of  light  and  liberty, 
and  became  brethren  in  the  family  of  God.  No 
question  was  there  of  wealth  or  poverty,  of  free- 
dom or  bondage ;  whosoever  believed  and  was 
baptized,  entered  into  the  sacred  fellowship  of 
the  Church. 

Let  it  be  granted  that  there  was  a  moment's 
doubt  as  to  the  method  in  which  those  privi- 
leges were  to  be  extended  to  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth.  God  does  not  ever  seem  to  lead  men 
into  complete  and  perfect  truth  all  at  once. 
y\nd  yet  there  was  no  doubt  among  the  Apos- 
tles, as  to  whether  others  than  the  children  of 
Abraham  should  participate  in  the  blessings  of 
the  Covenant.  The  only  question  was  as  to  the  ' 
necessity  of  their  first  becoming  Jewish  prose- 
lytes. And  this  question  was  soon  set  at  rest, 
practically,  under  Divine  guidance,  by  Saint 
Peter,  and  in  a  more  systematic  and  reasoned 
manner  by  Saint  Paul,  appointed  to  be  specially 
the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Then  did  the 
whole  truth  which  was  involved  in  the  Incarna- 
tion shine  forth  upon  the  Church.     Then  did  it 


i- 


68 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST 


become  self-evident  that  in  Clirist  Jesus  there 
is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  neither  bond  nor  free, 
neither  male  nor  female. 

And  if  this  were  the  constitution  of  the  King- 
dom, the  nature  of  the  principles  of  the  King- 
dom followed  as  a  necessary  consequence.  The 
law  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  love,  —  love  to 
the  Father,  love  to  the  Great  Elder  Brother,  and 
in  Him  love  to  all  the  Brethren.  And  herein  is 
the  greatness  of  the  Law  of  the  Gospel  demon- 
strated, as  compared  with  all  the  feeble  and 
powerless  human  systems  of  ethics  which  had 
attempted  to  regulate  the  life  and  conduct  of 
men  in  the  past.  It  carried  its  principle,  its 
argument,  its  proof  within  itself.  It  sprang  out 
of  the  relations  established  by  the  manifestation 
of  God  in  Christ,  and  by  the  grafting  of  the 
members  into  His  mystical  Body.  Nor  was  this 
all.  It  was  enforced  and  made  an  actual  inner 
power  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Love. 
God  could  now  dwell  upon  the  earth  with  men, 
since  man  was  now  ascended  into  heaven  and 
seated  at  the  ri^ht  hand  of  Gel.  The  law  of  love 
is  no  longer  a  mere  theor\'  however  beautiful,  a 
mere  precept  however  binding ;  it  is  a  power,  the 
very  power  of  Cjod  working  in  the  heart  of  man. 
Such  is,  at  least,  the  claim  of  the  Gospel  and 
of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  to  this  ex- 
tent, at  least,  its  pretensions  must  be  conceded ; 
this  is  its  message  to  the  children  of  men,  how- 
ever it  may  be  received,  or  whatever  may  be  its 


CIVILIZA  TION  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 


69 


effects,  Man  is  the  child  of  God.  The  lost 
child  he  is  when  he  is  livinc^  in  icjnorance  and 
in  sin  ;  but  in  Jesus  Christ  the  lost  child  found 
and  brought  back  to  his  Father's  house.  Nor 
need  we  fear  the  test  of  facts,  when  we  declare 
that  this  new  doctrine  did  not  remain  a  mere 
theory,  —  that  it  became  a  power,  a  fact  in  human 
society;  so  that  men  were  "no  longer  strangers 
and  sojourners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the 
saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God  ;  "  ^  and  this 
changed  relation  worked  a  revolution  among  all 
the  down-trodden  classes  of  human  society. 
Let  us  note  the  change  which  passed  more  par- 
ticularly upon  those  classes  of  whose  condition 
under  heathenism  we  have  already  spoken. 

I.  Wouia)i  was  placed  on  a  level  with  man  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  There  was  no  longer  a 
distinction  of  male  and  female.  It  was,  there- 
fore, no  longer  possible  to  assign  to  her  a  ser- 
vile position  in  the  family  and  in  the  social 
system.  And  hence  the  Christian  Apostle  says 
to  Christian  husbands,  "  Love  your  wives,"  and 
finds  in  marriage  a  type  of  the  union  of  Christ 
with  the  Church.  And  from  that  time  marriage 
assumed  a  new  significance,  and  the  wife  be- 
came the  partner  and  companion  of  the  hus- 
band, and  the  gentle  ruler  of  the  household. 
As  a  consequence,  the  character  of  the  Chris- 
tian woman  became  ennobled,  and  invested  with 
a  dignity  which    even   the    heathen  could    not 

1  Eph.  ii.  19. 


70 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


If- 


ignore ;  so  that  an  opponent  of  Christianity, 
like  the  heathen  rhetorician  Libanius,  was  con- 
strained to  exclaim,  "  What  wives  those  Chris- 
tians have  !  " 

2.  How,  again,  could  the  laboring  classes  fail 
to  receive  a  regenerating  influence  from  the 
Gospel,  when  Jesus  Himself  had  been  a  work- 
ing-man, a  carpenter;  when  His  first  followers 
and  the  propagators  of  His  Gospel  had  been 
fishermen.  His  greatest  Apostle  a  tent-maker 
who  made  it  his  boast  that  he  preached  the 
Gospel  without  charge  to  his  hearers  because 
he  could  maintain  himself,  working  with  his 
own  hands?  Thus  were  labor  and  the  condi- 
tion of  the  laboror  made  honorable  in  the 
Church,  since  the  laborer  was  a  child  of  God, 
and,  whether  capable  of  earthly  citizenship  or 
not,  a  citizen  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  having 
full  right  to  the  brotherly  love  of  the  Divine 
Family.  And  so  it  came  to  pass  that  the  mind 
of  the  IMiddle  Ages,  which  counted  prayer  the 
highest  service  of  man,  could  say,  "To  labor  is 
to  pray ;  "  and  so  it  is  that  we  can  now  regard 
work  in  the  truest  sense  as  worship. 

3.  To  none,  perhaps,  was  the  change  pro- 
duced by  the  message  of  Christ  more  signifi- 
cant and  more  profound  than  to  the  poor.  It 
was  one  of  the  notes  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
indicated  specially  by  our  Lord  Himself,  that 
"  the  poor  have  the  Gospel  preached  to  them."  ^ 

1  Matt.  xi.  5. 


iiiirail 


Wm 


CIVILIZA  TION  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 


71 


In  the  Church  of  Christ  the  poor  man  found 
a  community  which  recognized  in  him  a  child 
of  God,  and  accorded  to  him,  without  reserve, 
all  the  privileges  of  citizens  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  He  found  brethren  who  nut  only  greeted 
him  with  a  loving  welcome,  but  also  helped  to 
supply  his  needs  out  of  the  weekly  offerings 
presented  every  Lord's  Day  at  their  gathering 
together  for  h^ucharist  and  for  worship.  Now, 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
arose  houses  of  refuge  and  shelter  for  the  poor, 
the  needy,  the  infirm.  The  Romans  had  hos- 
pitals for  their  soldiers;  they  had  no  public 
provision  for  the  sick  and  needy  among  the 
poor.  Even  the  heathen  could  not  help  being 
struck  by  this  new  and  strange  development  of 
humanity  in  the  Church.  Julian  the  Apostate, 
—  one  of  the  bitterest,  if  also  one  of  the  noblest, 
of  the  enemies  of  the  Nazarene,  —  who  professed 
an  ardent  belief  in  the  glory  of  the  old  pagan- 
ism, which  he  labored  so  eagerly  to  restore,  and 
for  that  purpose  waged  a  war  of  anr  "hilation 
against  the  Church  in  the  fourth  century,  yet 
could  not  withhold  his  admiration  from  the 
Christians  in  their  care  for  the  poor  of  the 
flock.  It  was  in  vain  that  he  endeavored  to 
awaken  the  same  spirit  in  the  adherents  of  the 
Id  relifjion.     He  writes,  in  his  disappointment. 


o 


ppc 

to  Arsacius,  the  Archpriest  of  Galatia :  "  Hel- 
lenism does  not  prosper  as  we  could  wish,  and 
this    throufih    the    fault  of  its    adherents.     For 


*«.(l:l 


72 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


they  arc  destitute  of  the  virtues  of  the  despised 
Galileans ;  and  whilst  among  the  despicable 
people  of  the  Jews  there  is  none  who  is  allowed 
to  beg,  the  Christians  not  only  support  their 
own  poor,  but  contribute  to  the  relief  of  some 
of  ours  also,  whom  we  leave,  without  assistance, 
to  their  tender  care."  ^  What  this  has  grown  to, 
no  one  living  in  these  lands  needs  to  be  told. 
For  every  species  and  form  of  luiman  suffering 
merciful  provision  is  made  in  our  almshouses, 
our  infirmaries,  our  hospitals;  because  the  Spirit 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  spirit  of  human  brotherhood, 
has  penetrated  our  society,  and  leavened  many 
hearts  which  know  not  even  whence  that  new 
spirit  has  come,  some  even  which  yield  no  con- 
scious homage  to  that  Great  Elder  Brother  who 
has  brought  us  this  new  grace  from  our  Father 
in  heaven. 

4.  We  have  spoken  of  the  condition  of  slaves 
in  the  heathen  world ;  and  it  has  been  made  a 
reproach  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ  that  it  contains 
no  command  for  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves, 
and  that  every  Christian  nation  lias  exercised 
the  same  tyranny  over  bondsmen  which  was 
common  in  the  ancient  world.  Nay,  more,  it 
is  argued  that  Christianity  has  actually  been  a 
support  of  slavery,  iincc  Saint  Paul  sent  back 
to  I'hilemon  his  runaway  slave  Onesimus,  as 
though  he  had  a  right  to  claim  him  as  his 
property. 

^  Julian,  Epistle  49. 


CIVILIZATION  AND   CHRISTIANITY.         73 


There  is  really  no  considerable  difficulty  in 
meeting  these  objections,  if  men  are  only  willing 
to  receive  the  answer. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  in  the  first  place,  that 
Christianity  was  not  a  code  of  laws  and  precei)ts, 
but  a  principle.  To  have  reduced  the  principle 
of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man  to  a  series  of 
special  commands  would  have  been  to  narrow 
and  cramp  its  sphere  and  influence  throughout 
all  ages.  No  set  of  precepts,  however  large  and 
varied,  can  include  every  case  and  every  variety 
of  circumstances  which  may  arise  in  the  devel- 
opment of  human  society;  while  the  principles 
of  the  Gospel  are  so  living,  so  expansive,  so 
flexible,  that  no  conceivable  condition  or  cir- 
cumstances of  man  or  of  society  can  escape 
their  application  and  their  force.  Christ  refused 
to  be  a  divider  or  to  interfere  in-  particular 
cases  between  man  and  man  which  the  indi- 
vidual conscience  could  decide ;  and  we  can 
see  that  this  was  the  way  in  which  alone  a 
noble  and  a  spiritual  morality  could  be  made 
possible. 

With  regard  to  the  particular  institution  of 
slavery,  it  was,  humanly  speaking,  impossible 
for  the  Church  to  command  its  abolition.  It 
would  have  been  to  embarrass  itself  with  un- 
dertakings which  would  have  hindered,  perhaps 
rendered  utterly  ineffectual,  its  own  proper  work. 
Are  we,  moreover,  certain  that  the  immediate 
emancipation  of  the  servile  classes  would  have 


74 


W/TA'ESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


I'll 


been  a  gain,  we  say  not  to  the  owners  but  to  the 
bondsmen  themselves?  There  are  some  men, 
by  no  means  irrational,  inhumane,  or  unchris- 
tian, who  wish  that,  in  more  places  than  one, 
the  Hberation  of  the  slave  might  have  been 
more     radual. 

But,  however  all  this  may  be,  —  and  it  is  un- 
necessary to  olTcr  here  any  opinion  on  these 
subjects,  —  it  is  tolerably  clear  to  all  who  give 
unprejudiced  consideration  to  the  subject,  that 
the  truth  and  the  power  which  have  emanci- 
pated the  slave  in  every  land,  had  their  origin 
in  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  was  the 
first  teacher  of  our  common  origin,  common 
powers  and  capacities,  common  rights  and  privi- 
leges. It  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  not  in  I'lato  or  in 
Seneca  or  in  Moses,  that  there  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Gentile,  neither  Greek  nor  Barbarian,  neither 
bond  nor  free.  When  we  learn  that  God  hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to 
dwell  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  —  when  we 
know  that  Jesus  Christ  tasted  death  for  every 
man,  died  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  — 
then  we  know  that  slavery  and  every  kind  of 
oppression  is  doomed.  Not  all  at  once  do  we 
perceive  the  full  meaning  which  is  contained  in 
our  brotherhood  in  Jesus  Christ.  Light  breaks 
slowly  through  the  darkness  of  earth,  dispelling 
gradually  our  ignorance,  our  prejudices,  our 
selfishness;  but  when  the  darkness  is  gone  and 
the  true  light  shineth  upon  us,  then  do  we  see 


CIVILIZATION  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 


7S 


that  its  full  glory  is  derived  from  that  Sun  of 
righteousness  which  has  risen  with  healing  in  its 
beams,  —  that  it  comes  from  Him  who  is  the 
Light  of  the  World,  whom  following  we  shall 
never  walk  in  darkness. 

5.  It  is  true  that  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
has  not  yet  had  free  course.  We  still  sec,  alas  ! 
the  remains  of  the  old  selfish  individualism  in 
the  relations  of  peoples  to  peoples,  and  of  men 
to  men;  and  yet  how  vast  the  change  which  has 
already  been  elTectcd  !  It  is  true  that  zvars  have 
not  ceased  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  We  have 
not  yet  broken  every  bow  and  cut  every  spear 
in  sunder.  But  even  here  the  spirit  of  the  (ius- 
pcl  is  manifested.  Nations  do  not  rush  into  v.ar 
with  the  impetuosity  of  wild  beasts,  eager  for  the 
fray  and  thirsting  for  blood.  Even  when  there 
is  no  reasonable  pretext  for  hostilities,  those 
who  begin  the  warfare  must  convince  themselves 
that  there  is  a  cause,  must  put  forth  some  plausi- 
ble plea  to  the  civilized  world  as  a  reason  for 
their  having  recourse  to  the  sword ;  and  when 
wars  do  break  out,  and  the  weakest  has  to  yield, 
the  conqueror  no  longer  dares  —  may  we  not 
say,  no  longer  desires  —  to  ravage  the  con- 
quered soil  with  fire  and  sword.  Among  many 
other  proofs  of  the  changed  conditions  uf  war- 
fare, may  we  not  mention  with  gratitude  to  God, 
that,  after  the  close  of  the  great  civil  war  in  this 
country,  not  one  person  was  put  to  death  for 
participation  in  the  rebellion? 


I 


?*,  11 


m 


•w 


7« 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


6.  And  what  shall  \vc  say  of  the  internal 
affairs  of  nations,  —  t)f  our  government,  our 
legislation,  the  actual  administration  of  justice? 
Has  it  not  come  to  this,  that  no  nation  in  which 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  has  free  course  can  now,  for 
any  length  of  time,  be  governed  otherwise  than 
for  the  good  of  the  community  at  large?  No 
prestige,  no  lengthened  possession  of  the  place 
of  authority,  however  far  back  it  may  reach  into 
the  past,  no  halo  of  glory  and  dignity  which  may 
rest  upon  the  brow  of  the  ruler,  will  retain  him 
in  his  seat  if  his  rule  is  tyrannical  and  injurious 
to  his  subjects.  Wisdom  may  now  say  with 
fresh  emphasis,  "  By  me  kings  rule  and  princes 
decree  justice." 

And  what  of  our  legislation?  Is  it  not  in- 
spired by  a  pure  spirit  of  benevolence,  so  that 
no  law  could  even  be  proposed  or  thought  of 
unless  it  could  plead  its  tendency  to  ameliorate 
the  condition  of  the  people?  Mistakes  enough 
are  doubtless  made  in  legislation  as  in  every- 
thing else,  for  we  are  not  infallible ;  but  here  as 
elsewhere  breathes  the  spirit  of  Christ,  —  the 
spirit  of  loving  brotherhood  which  will  not  suf- 
fer the  poor  and  the  weak  to  be  trodden  under- 
foot, but  cultivates  mercy,  kindness,  generosity 
to  all  who  need. 

It  is  always  easy  to  point  out  faults  and  sins 
and  shortcomings ;  and  in  our  modern  civiliza- 
tion there  are  not  wanting  features  and  tenden- 
cies which  are  at  variance  with  the  principles  of 


CIVILIZATIOX  AXD   CHRISTIAXITV. 


77 


truth  and  justice  and  mercy.  Yet  tlicy  are  not 
the  characteristic  marks  of  that  order  of  tilings 
to  wliich  it  is  our  privilege  to  belong.  They  are 
violations  of  its  spirit,  exceptions  to  its  general 
tendency,  spots  and  blots  upon  its  f.iir  face. 
And  we  are  not  cherishing  unwarrantetl  hopes 
and  expectations  when  we  look  forward  to  the 
time  when  they  shall  have  disappeared.     That 


tunc  IS  coming 


'*  When  man  tn  man  tlie  world  o'er 
Shall  lirothcrs  Ik-  for  all  that." 


,*■ 


*    * 


And  this  hope  we  cherish  not  merely  because 
the  thing  itself  is  desirable,  and  is  now  univer- 
salK'  acknowledged  to  loe  desirable,  but  because 
we  have  seen  a  principle  in  operation  in  the 
world  which  has  already  vindicated  its  claim  to 
humanize  ^  mankind  and  diffuse  the  principle  of 
brotherly  love  among  them ;  because  we  now 
behold  this  principle  going  forth  throughout 
the  human  race  conquering  and  to  conquer, 
and  we  behold  alike  in  the  inner  power  and 
vitality  of  the  principle  itself,  and  in  the  mighty 
and  enduring  conquests  which  it  has  already 
achieved,  the  sure  pledge,  the  promise  which 
only  awaits  the  appointed  time  of  its  fulfilment, 
that  as  there  is  but  one  God  and  one  Lord,  one 
Father  of  whom  the  whole  Family  in  heaven 
and  earth  is  named,  so  there  will  be,  in  His  good 

1  See  Note  C. 


h 
is. 


w 


78 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


time,  but  one  Family,  —  one  in  truth,  in  love, 
in  sympathy,  —  gathered  around  Ili.s  throne, 
acknowledging  themselves  as  brethren,  knit  to- 
gether in  one  communion  and  fellowship  in  the 
mystical  Body  of  Christ. 


LECTURE    III. 


PERSONAL   CULTURE    AND   RELIGION. 


51' 


'  ff ! 

„r4^ 

Man,  Iiulividiial  nnd  Social.  — Transition  from  Civilization  to 
personal  Culture. —  Man's  Nature  and  Culture.  —  Puints 
of  Agreement.  —  L  Theories  of  Culture  various,  but  re- 
ducible to  two,  Kcli,i;i()us  and  \on-Rcli,^ious  :  i.  The  Non- 
Religious, —  (i)  .Social,  (2)  Scientitic,  (3)  Literary,  (4)  I'osi- 
tivist  ;  2.  The  Christian.  —  IL  Mean.s  of  Attainment  : 
Human  Culture  not  undervalued,  l)ut  insufficient,  as  not 
taking  account  of  Man's  whole  Nature;  illustrated:  i.  Idea 
of  Immoitalitv;  2.  Responsibility,  —  ( I )  C(jnscieiice,  (2)  the 
Idea  of  Cod,  (3)  ('onsciousness  of  Sin,  (4)  how  met  l)y 
the  Gospel,  (5)  Effects  jiroduccd.  —  Mill.  —  Goethe  anil 
Saint  Francois  cle  .'^ales.  —  Luther  and  Rousseau.  —  General 
Effects.  —  The  Christian  Ideal.  —  Lecky.  —  Mill  on  lielicf 
in  Immortality  ;  on  the  Life  and  Teaching  of  Jesus. 


S.I 


:,''! 


"\T  71'^  may  study  the  natufc  of  man  in  two 
V  V  different  ways.  We  may  select  tlic  in- 
dividual as  a  specimen  of  the  race,  and  see  in 
him  all  the  powers,  capacities,  tendencies  which 
arc  manifested  on  a  larger  scale  in  the  whole 
human  family.  Or  wc  may  'oegin  at  the  other 
end  of  the  scale.  We  r^-^  '■.Ludy  the  race  of 
man  as  a  whole,  in  socici/,  in  nationalities,  in 
the  wide  extent  and  lengthened  progress  of  hu- 
man history,  and  learn  from  such  an  investiga- 
tion all  the  wonderful  possibilities  which  arc 
contained  within  the  individual  man,. 


it 


iref^ 


80 


IV/nVESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


Both  of  these  methods  of  inquiry  have  been 
pursued  with  more  or  less  of  success.  But 
neither  of  them,  by  itself,  will  conduct  us  to  the 
knowled<4e  of  tlie  whole  truth  concerning  our 
own  nature,  A  mere  system  of  individualism 
which  ignores  the  corporate  character  of  the 
race  is  vsoi  merel\-  wrong  in  theory,  will  not 
merely  fail  in  explaining  the  relations  of  man 
to  his  fellow-man  and  to  the  world,  but  will 
never  even  rightlv  understand  the  individual 
\  upon  which  it  professes  to  concentrate  its  whole 
,  attention.  On  the  other  hand,  a  mere  system 
of  socialism,  which  ignores  the  indi\idual  or  re- 
gards him  only  as  an  undistinguished  part  of 
the  whole,  will  miss  some  of  the  most  funda- 
mental and  characteristic  elements  which  con- 
stitute the  complete  nature  of  man. 

We  have  already  given  some  attention  to  the 
progress  of  humanit}'  and  human  civilization  as 
a  whole,  and  we  have  attempted  to  show  that 
the  higherl  elements  in  that  civilization  are 
traceable  directly  to  the  influence  of  the  Gospel. 
If  we  are  right  in  this  conclusi<  a,  the  reason 
must  be  found  in  the  fact  that  Christianity  is 
not  merely  adapted  to  teach  true  principles 
of  sociology,  but  that  its  message  has  also  a 
response  to  the  needs  of  the  individual  man. 
We  cannot  have  a  great  and  noble  civilization 
where  individual  men  are  left  untaught  and 
uncultivated  ;  neither  can  the  individual  attain 
to  his  highest  and  rightful  development  except 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AXD  RELIGION.       8 1 

amid  such  circumstances  —  or,  to  use  the  mod- 
ern phrase,  in  such  an  environment  —  as  will 
favor  and  foster  that  development. 

We  pass  therefore,  by  a  natural  transition, 
from  the  subject  of  civilization  to  that  of  per- 
sonal culture, —  a  subject  which  is  receiving  at 
the  present  moment  a  very  large  amount  of 
attention  from  thinkers,  students,  and  teachers 
of  the  most  various  schools  and  tendencies.  It 
would  perhaps  be  difficult  to  mention  a  subject 
in  which  the  Church  and  the  world,  men  of 
science  and  men  of  literature,  men  who  arc 
concerned  about  education  and  men  who  are 
concerned  about  government,  are  more  deeply 
interested. 

Man  is  a  living  being.  Like  all  living  beings, 
he  has  a  complex  nature;  and  as  the  highest  of 
them,  he  has  the  most  complicated  nature  of 
all ;  and  this  nature  is  not  only  capable  of  cul- 
tivation and  development,  but  requires  it,  and 
will  attain  to  a  complete  and  harmonious  con- 
dition just  as  its  culture  is  legitimate  and  com- 
plete A  plant,  a  flower,  a  tree,  a  bird,  a  beast, 
each  has  its  own  nature,  which  will  receive  its 
complete  harmony  and  maturity  just  as  it  is 
placed  in  those  circumstances  which  will  pro- 
vide a  supply  for  all  its  needs ;  and  so  it  will  be 
with  the  crown  of  animated  nature,  the  being 
whom  we  call  man.  He,  too,  has  powers  which 
must  be  developed  and  disciplined  in  a  normal 
manner,  or  they  will  lie  dormant  or  be  perverted, 

6 


"  \ 


.'  H 


82 


IV/TJV£SS£S  TO  CHRIST. 


SO  that  cither  partial  death  or  discord  and  con- 
fusion will  take  the  place  of  life  and  harmony.^ 

These  principles  are  so  universally  recognized 
that  the  mere  statement  of  them  will  suffice  for 
our  present  purpose.  As  a  consequence  of  the 
<jeneral  unanimity  on  the  subject,  it  has  come  to 
pass  that  each  school  or  s)'SLcm  of  thought, 
materialistic  Oi-  spiritualistic,  atheistic  or  thc- 
istic.  Christian  or  unbelieving,  lias  felt  bound  to 
work  out  its  own  scheme  for  the  education  of 
mankind,  for  the  cultix^ation  of  the  human 
powers,  with  results  which  are  sometimes  very 
remarkably  in  agreement.  Different  as  their 
theories  of  culture  arc  in  many  respects,  they  do 
not  very  widely  disagree  with  respect  to  its 
fruits  and  its  evidences,  or  even  its  essential  na- 
ture. Up  to  a  certain  point,  indeed,  we  shall 
find  a  very  remarkable  agreement  between  the 
various  theories  which  are  proposed  for  our 
acceptance. 

I.  Let  us  first  ask  ivhat  those  tJicorics  arc,  and 
ivJiat  thry  propose  to  effect.  We  have,  first,  the 
ordinar}'  worldly  or  social  view  of  culture,  which 
is  purely  secular,  and  which,  without  condemn- 
ing or  rejecting  religion,  can  hardly  be  said  to 
take  account  of  it,  unless  as  a  mere  social  fact. 
We  have  next  the  scientific  theory,  and  then  the 
literary  theory,  respecting  which  similar  remarks 
may  be  made.     Beyond  these  we  have  the  con- 

*  Aristotle  insisted  that  man,  like  all  other  beings,  had  his 
own  7vork  {fpyuv).     ''  Ethics,"  book  i. 


PERSOXAL    CULTURE  AND    RELTGIOiV, 


83 


fcsscdly  materialistic  or  atheistic  theory.  And, 
apart  from  these,  and  in  diametrical  opposi- 
tion to  some  of  them,  \vc  have  the  Christian 
method. 

\Vc  thoroucjhly  believe  that  the  more  care- 
fully we  examine  the  claims  and  the  methods 
of  th  "^p  theories,  the  more  clearly  \vc  shall  see 
''a  they  arc  reducible  to  two,  —  the  religious 
and  the  unreligious  or  non-religious,  —  and  that 
ultimatch'  the  various  rclicrious  theories  will  be 
merged  in  the  Christian,  in  that  religion  which 
is  based  upon  the  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  It  is  quite  true  that  there  are 
system :  which  will  refuse  to  be  assigned  to 
either  01  these  classes,  whose  advocates  imagine 
that  they  have  made  a  compromise  between 
mere  secularism  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  doc- 
trinal Christianity  on  the  other,  and  so  have  se- 
cured the  advantages  and  avoided  the  evils  of 
both.  But  these  systems  have  no  inherent 
vitality.  The  surrender  of  distinct  Christian 
doctrine  has  always  led,  as  all  history  testifies, 
to  rationalism,  to  unbelief,  to  mere  deism,  and 
finally  to  pantheism  and  atheism. 

I.  Let  us,  however,  consider  some  of  these 
theories  of  human  culture  just  as  they  present 
thomselves.  Let  us  see  what  they  regard  as  the 
essential  characteristics  of  a  cultivated  human 
being,  and  the  methods  by  which  they  would 
effect  thjs  culture.  Now,  probabl)-  the  first  thing 
that  will  strike  us  in  these  theories  will  be  the 


'^  ffi 

1 

1 

ra 

"* 

1^ 

^ 

»■           1 

1 

i 

i 

1 

U     ' 

'  ^^           \ 

li     i 

K5 

jl'v 

'■'    m 

II 

•    i 

i 

1    W( 

1 

di 

n 

;  1 

'i 

'  3 

1 

• 

I 

'\\ 

*'     H 

*  1 

(   1 

i  ^ 

«   31 

Ft" 


i 

"hi 


(■V       ,f^      '* 


mw 


84 


IV/TNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


large  extent  to  which  they  are  in  accord  with 
the  teachings  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Church. 
For  this  agreement  we  ought,  indeed,  to  be  de- 
voutly grateful,  being  ever  ready  to  recognize 
the  amount  of  truth  which  is  held  by  those  who 
differ  from  ourselves,  while  we  are  on  our  guard 
against  surrendering  any  portion  of  that  truth 
which  has  been  delivered  to  us  from  above. 
Let  us  then  proceed  to  consider  the  different 
views  of  culture  which  are  current  among  us 
at  the  present  time. 

(i)  We  take,  first,  the  ordinary  worldly,  secu- 
lar, or  social  view  of  culture.  What  do  men  in 
general  mean  when  they  speak  of  a  cultivated 
person,  and  what  are  the  qualities  by  which  such 
an  one  is  generally  recognized?  The  world  re- 
quires refinement,  case,  self-control,  gentleness, 
kindness,  courtesy.  We  can  hardly  say  that 
the  world  requires  truth,  or  a  high  srnse  of 
duty,  or  self-sacrifice.  Still  it  admires  these 
qualities,  and  applauds  them  in  certain  circum- 
stances, especially  when  they  are  found  in  union 
with  those  other  acquirements  and  characteristics 
with  which  it  cannot  dispense. 

(2)  We  take  next  the  scientific  view  of  culture, 
and  here  we  will  listen  to  Professor  Huxley.^ 
"  That  man,  I  think,  has  a  liberal  education," 
says  Dr.  Huxley  (his  expression  is  condensed, 
but  not  altered),  "  whose  body  is  the  ready  ser- 
vant of  his  will,  .  .  .  whose  intellect  is  a  clear, 
'  Lay  Sermons,  p.  34. 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.       85 

cold  logic  engine,  with  all  its  parts  of  equal 
strength  and  in  smooth  working  order;  .  .  . 
whose  mind  is  stored  with  a  knowledge  of  the 
great  and  fundamental  truths  of  Nature;  .  .  . 
one  who  is  full  of  life  and  fire,  but  whose  pas- 
sions are  trained  to  come  to  heel  by  a  vigorous 
will,  the  servant  of  a  tender  conscience ;  who 
has  learned  to  love  all  beauty,  whether  of  Nature 
or  of  art,  to  hate  all  vileness,  and  to  respect 
others  as  himself."  So  much  for  the  scientific 
view  of  culture. 

(3)  What  is  the  literary  viq^nI  There  is,  per- 
haps, no  one  whose  right  to  speak  on  this  point 
would  be  considered  higher  than  that  of  Mr. 
Matthew  Arnold.  According  to  this  distin- 
guished writer,  culture  is  "  an  inward  and  spirit- 
ual activity,  having  for  its  characters  increased 
sweetness,  increased  light,  increased  life,  increased 
sympathy."  Mr.  Arnold  does  not  exclude  re- 
ligion as  an  influence  in  culture.  According  tov 
him,  religion  is  "  morality  touched  by  emotion."*! 
On  some  parts  of  these  definitions  we  shall  here- 
after have  to  comment.  At  present  we  are  sim- 
ply stating  the  views  of  the  different  schools. 

(4)  It  may  suffice  if  we  select  one  other  type 
of  teaching  on  this  subject ;  namely,  the  posi- 
tivist,  materialistic,  or  atheistic.  There  are,  of 
course,  positivists  and  a:^nostics  who  are  not 
ntheists,  who  are  probably  -.n  their  hearts  theists, 

1  See  his  "Literature  aod  Dogtna"  (1873),  "God  and  the 
Bible"  (1875). 


'» 


Ik 


I't  i  f; 


li 

i-ji 


If? 


ill  P 


&5 


( ■ ' 


m 


'ij 


T7^ 


86 


WIT.VESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


although  scientifically  they  will  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  region  of  faith.  These,  however, 
are  sufficiently  represented  by  the  literary  and 
scientific  types  already  noticed.  We  will  now 
quote  the  words  of  one  who  is  a  very  distin- 
guished as  well  as  a  very  frank  representative 
of  atheism,  Dr.  Ludwig  Buchner,  a  man  of  un- 
doubted powers,  although  sadly  lacking  in  taste. 
According  to  this  writer,^  culture  {Bildung)  is 
"the  increased  insight  of  the  individual  into  the 
ends  of  civil  and  social  life,  increased  regard  for 
the  rights  of  others  and  for  his  own  duties." 
Elsewhere  he  includes  sympathy  among  the 
elements  of  culture. 

2.  Now,  what  is  the  Christian  idea*  of  culture? 
It  is  set  forth  in  many  different  forms  in  various 
parts  of  the  Bible.  We  might  specify  particu- 
larly and  supremely  the  Beatitudes  which  form 
the  introduction  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
as  giving  the  characters  of  Christian  culture  in  a 
manner  which  could  hardly  be  surpassed.  The 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  as  enumerated  by  Saint  Paul,^ 
run  in  parallel  lines  with  the  precepts  of  the 
Divine  Master ;  and  the  stirring  exhortation  of 
Saint  Peter  "^  in  no  wise  differs  from  that  teach- 
ing: "  Giving  all  diligence,  add  to  your  faith  vir- 
tue [manliness]  ;  and  to  virtue  knowledge;  and 
to  knowledge  temperance ;  and  to  temperance 
patience ;    and   to   patience    godliness ;    and  to 


1  Der  Gottes-Begriff  (1874),  p.  59. 

2  Gal.  V.  22,  23.  8  2  Peter  i.  5-7. 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.       87 


(JCiiJ 


godliness  brotherly  kindness ;  and  to  brotherly- 
kindness  charity." 

In  all  these  representations  there  is  a  remark- 
able and  striking  unity  of  sentiment  such  as  we 
should  hardly  have  expected,  considering  the 
difference  of  the  points  of  view  from  which  the 
subject  is  regarded.  We  do  not  now  stop  to 
show  that  in  all  of  these  theories  we  discern 
very  clearly  the  influence  of  the  Gospel.  At 
present  we  will  only  notice  the  principal  points 
of  agreement  between  the  different  theories. 
Let  us  note  them.  All  are  agreed  that  in  order 
to  a  true  and  liberal  human  culture,  there  must 
be  a  disciplined  and  instructed  intelligence,  a 
pure  and  sympathetic  heart,  and  a  will  strong, 
benevolent,  self-controlled  ;  and  that  all  these 
powers  of  man's  nature  shall  be  so  propor- 
tioned and  balanced,  and  so  harmonious  in 
their  operation,  that  they  shall  constitute  a 
charac'.er  powerful  without  violence,  and  gen- 
tle without  weakness.  As  to  the  desirableness 
of  such  a  character,  all  respectable  men  of  all 
schools  'are  wholly  agreed.  But  here  a  ques- 
tion of  the  most  serious  importance  meets  us. 

II.  How  is  such  a  culture  to  be  attained?  It 
would  be  wearisome  and  it  is  unnecessary  even 
to  attempt  an  enumeration  of  the  various  an- 
swers which  arc  given  to  this  question.  As  has 
been  already  remarked,  there  are  essentially  but 
two  modes  of  culture.  It  must  be  cither  reli- 
gious or  irreligious ;  or,  if  this  latter  word  sounds 


I 


>» 


88 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


harsh,  let  us  say  non-rcligious  or  secular.  It 
must  consist  in  a  mere  human  discipline  which 
has  regard  only  to  the  laws  of  Nature,  man's 
bodily  and  mental  constitution  and  the  circum- 
stances in  which  he  is  placed ;  or  it  must  rest 
upon  the  revelation  of  God  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  God-man,  the  Redeemer  of  the 
world,  and  on  His  redeeming  work  as  applied 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  the  Christian  means 
of  grace. 

A  believer  and  teacher  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ  can,  of  course,  have  no  difficulty  in  de- 
claring that,  in  his  judgment  at  least,  a  mere 
secular  culture  is  altogether  insufficient  and  in- 
capable of  producing  a  complete  and  harmoni- 
ous development  of  our  powers,  such  as  is  the 
result  of  the  operation  of  Christian  truth  in  the 
hearts  and  minds  of  those  who  receive  it. 

Let  it  be  clearly  understood,  however,  that  in 
pleading  for  a  religious  and  a  Christian  disci- 
pline, we  are  in  no  way  attempting  to  underrate 
the  importance  of  that  training  of  body  and 
mind  which  has  special  regard  to  the  constitu- 
tion and  powers  of  our  human  nature,  physical 
and  psychical.  Those  are  doing  not  merely  val- 
uable scientific  work,  but  truly  divine  work,  who 
arc  engaged  in  the  careful  study  of  the  human 
frame,  of  the  laws  of  health,  and  all  such  sub- 
jects. No  less  are  those  doing  good  service  to 
man  and  to  God  who  are  investigating  the  laws 
of  mind,  and  treating  psychology  as  an  invalu- 


PRRSOXAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION. 


89 


able  aid  in  the  work  of  education.  It  would  be 
the  sheer  fanaticism  of  ignorance  which  could 
despise  or  ignore  the  importance  of  such  use- 
ful and  necessary  work.  Nay,  further,  we  may 
freely  admit  that  these  subjects  have  been  un- 
duly neglected  by  many  advocates  of  a  religious 
education.  By  such  means  they  have  greatly 
hindered  and  marred  their  own  proper  work, 
suffering  that  nature,  which  might  have  been 
made  an  auxiliary  to  grace,  to  be  so  burdened 
and  perverted  by  the  neglect  of  its  manifest  laws 
that  it  has  become  a  great  hinderer  c^f  the  work 
of  the  Gospel  in  the  individual  life. 

While,  however,  we  can  regard  only  with 
satisfaction  every  attempt  to  develop  and  disci- 
pline man's  powers  of  body  and  mind,  we  main- 
tain that  this  cannot  be  effectually  done  apart 
from  the  influence  of  religion.  For  this  opinion 
we  will  attempt  to  offer  some  adequate  reasons. 

In  making  this  very  necessary  and  serious 
attempt,  —  which  may  God  help  and  prosper 
and  bless  !  —  we  must  keep  clear  before  us  a  fun- 
damental principle,  already  noted,  upon  which 
there  cannot  be,  and  there  is  not,  any  difference 
of  opinion.  In  order  to  any  true  and  complete 
culture,  the  whole  nature  of  the  thing  to  be  cul- 
tivated, and  not  merely  a  part  of  it,  must  be 
taken  into  consideration ;  and  provision  must  be 
made  for  the  whole  of  that  nature  and  for  all  the 
elements  of  which  it  is  composed.  This  is  true 
of  every  object  which  is  susceptible  of  cultiva- 


:t'itt 


I   I 


7^ 


QO 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


pliiMf:^|: 


tion,  of  the  smallest  and  simplest  as  well  as  of 
the  greatest  and  the  most  complicated.  It  is 
true  of  the  tree,  of  the  plant,  of  the  very  grass 
of  the  field.  It  cannot  grow,  it  cannot  become 
what  it  is  capable  of  becoming,  unless  it  has  a 
suitable  soil,  a  congenial  climate,  —  unless  all 
the  circumstances  are  suited  to  its  nature  and 
requirements.  The  same  principle  is  applicable 
to  man  and  to  human  education.  Neglect  any 
part  or  element  of  his  nature,  and  the  result  will 
be  a  discipline  which  is  imperfect,  one-sided, 
abnormal. 

Now,  we  venture  to  assert,  having  regard  to 
these  admitted  principles,  that  a  merely  secular 
culture,  a  culture  which  knows  nothing  of  God, 
does  not  meet  the  requirements  of  human  nature, 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  not  produce  the 
rich  and  beautiful  and  harmonious  results  which 
flow  from  Christian  culture;  and  that  it  cannot 
do  so,  because  it  fails  to  take  account  of  elements 
in  the  nature  of  man  which  are  inseparable  from 
it,  and  ineradicable. 

Such  elements  arc  man's  longing  after  God, 
immortality,  perfection,  the  sense  of  responsibil- 
ity, involving  the  ideas  of  right  and  wrong  and 
the  consciousness  of  sin.  If  these  ideas  are  part 
of  human  history  and  of  human  nature,  can  any 
system  which  ignores  them  on  principle  ade- 
quately promote  the  development  and  provide 
for  the  culture  of  our  human  nature?  Either  it 
must  prove  that  these  ideas  are  mere  illusions, 


rtt 


::i 


VERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGIOX.       9 1 

tliat  they  arc  superstitious  beliefs  engendered  by 
man's  fears  and  ignorance,  or  else  it  nuist  con- 
fess that  it  makes  no  sufficient  provision  for 
human  culture. 

I.  Take,  first,  the  notion  of  immortality.  Wc 
take  it  first,  because  it  lies  nearest  to  the  truths 
concerning  human  nature  which  all  confess, 
because  it  does  not  necessarily  involve  those 
higher  truths  of  moral  perception,  responsibility, 
dependence  upon  God,  longing  for  His  presence 
and  sustaining  power.  UntU)ubtedly  it  is  a  no- 
tion which  can  hardly  be  ignored  in  considering 
what  is  a  fitting  method  of  education  for  a  crea- 
ture like  man. 

Science  tells  us  that  it  knows  nothing  of  im- 
mortality, and  irreligious  science  declares  that 
the  view  of  life  which  regards  man  as  destined 
to  exist  in  a  future  state  of  being  is  quite  apart 
from  its  calculations  and  teachings.  We  know 
nothing  of  such  prospects,  it  declares,  and  we 
have  nothing  to  do  with  them.  Wc  deal  only 
with  acknowledged,  tangible  facts,  which  no  one 
can  disprove,  even  if  he  chooses  to  ignore  them. 
Yes,  we  reply;  but  what  if  man  is  an  immortal 
being?  What  if  there  is  for  us  human  creatures 
a  state  of  existence  after  death,  into  which  we 
must  enter  after  we  have  done  with  time?  Do 
you  make  no  provision  in  your  system  for  such 
a  contingency? 

The  reply  of  the  non-religious  educator  is 
easily  anticipated.     If,  he  says,  wc  understand 


4 

i 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


V 


A 


<.  ^' 


y. 


% 


(/. 


fA 


1.0 


I.I 


2.2 


li°    lllllio 


1.8 


1.25       1.4       (6 

„ 6"     

► 

0% 


y] 


A 


^V:^ 
j->. 


// 


o 


/ 


s 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY    14580 

(716)  873-4S03 


fd 


\ 


W 


o 


^v 


« 
* 


6^ 


%^ 


(/. 


^ 


^^ 


6^ 


92 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


I-  II- 


rightly  the  human  constitution,  and  educate  and 
discipline  the  individual  man  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  his  nature,  then  it  does  not  matter 
whether  his  life  is  limited  to  this  visible  sphere 
or  goes  on  to  another  existence  beyond  the 
grave.  If  a  man  is  a  true  man,  trained,  disci- 
plined, harmoniously  developed,  then  it  does  not 
matter  where  he  is  or  how  he  is  employed.  He 
will  be  fit,  or  as  fit  as  he  can  be,  for  any  position 
or  work  to  which  he  may  be  called. 

Undoubtedly  there  is  a  large  measure  of  truth 
in  buch  an  answer  properly  understood.  We 
cannot,  however,  stop  at  this  point  to  show  the 
points  of  our  agreement  and  disagreement  with 
these  statements.  We  will  here  only  ask  a  ques- 
tion. Does  it,  then,  make  no  difiercnce  to  our 
vie./  of  whaL  a  man's  education  ought  to  be, 
whether  we  think  his  whole  life  is  spent  on  earth, 
or  he  has  another  life  beyond  and  above  the 
present?  Let  us  put  the  question  still  more 
plainly.  If  two  men  take  in  hand  the  work  of 
educating  a  child,  and  one  believes  that  the 
death  of  man  on  earth  is  the  end  of  his  exist- 
ence, and  the  other  that  it  is  only  the  gate  of 
a  nobler  life,  will  both  of  those  men  conduct  the 
work  of  education  in  precisely  the  same  manner? 
It  is  impossible  that  this  should  be  the  case. 
We  might  as  well  say  that  our  work  in  the 
schoolroom  will  be  precisely  the  same  whether 
we  are  to  live  beyond  the  age  of  childhood  or 
not,  whether  we  are  ever  to  grow  to  manhood  or 


~|ii 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.       93 


not.  For  the  relation  of  our  future  life  to  the 
present  may  be  regarded  as  very  similar  to  the 
relation  of  our  adult  life  to  the  age  of  childhood. 
Who  does  not  see  that  the  believer  in  immortal- 
ity has  many  questions  to  ask  which  the  mate- 
rialist dismisses  with  unconcern,  and  that  the 
answers  to  these  questions  will  profoundly  affect 
his  views  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  human  ed- 
ucation? Certainly  a  theory  of  culture  which 
entirely  ignores  the  question  of  man's  immor- 
tality can  hardly  be  regarded  as  sufficient;  for 
most  men  believe  in  immortality,  and  the  num- 
ber of  those  who  do  not  believe  in  it  or  at  least 
regard  the  question  as  one  worthy  of  serious 
consideration  must  be  quite  insignificant. 

2.  But  this  question  is  comparatively  super- 
ficial and  preliminary.  We  have  the  graver 
questions  of  man's  relation  to  the  ideas  of  right 
and  wrong  and  responsibility  and  God  to  con- 
sider, before  we  can  determine  the  true  nature 
of  human  culture.  Now,  let  the  reality  of  these 
ideas  be  once  established,  and  the  insufficiency 
of  any  merely  secular  culture  becomes  at  once 
apparent.  In  other  words,  unless  these  ideas 
be  delusions,  and  can  be  proved  to  be  such, 
no  culture  short  of  that  which  is  Christian  can 
be  reckoned  sufficient,  or  can  actuallv  suffice 
for  human  needs. 

There  are  various  ways  of  accounting  for  the 
existence  of  these  ideas  and  for  their  universal 
prevalence.    The  coarse  method  of  denouncing 


;3' 

;14 


94 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


» 

V 


M: 


them  as  the  inventions  of  a  priestly  caste,  which 
sought  power  for  itself  by  means  of  these  beliefs 
among  the  people,  is  now  very  generally  aban- 
doned. The  mere  denunciation  of  such  opin- 
ions as  gross  superstitions,  growing  up  in  the 
midst  of  a  race  sunk  in  ignorance,  is  partially  at 
least  put  aside.  Yet  it  is  impossible  for  those 
who  ignore  religion  as  a  necessary  part  of  hu- 
man education  to  allow  ideas  of  morality  and 
religion  to  hold  their  ground  without  question. 
Accordingly  men  of  the  school  of  Bi'v;liner  pro- 
fess to  be  able  to  make  short  work  with  all  the 
transcendental,  ethical,  metaphysical  ideas  which 
cannot  be  .'i«:counted  for  on  the  mere  ground  of 
sensuous  experience.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  wickedness,  they  say.  Sin  as  involving  guilt 
or  liability  to  punishment  is  a  mere  delusion.* 
Sin  is  merely  ignorance,  and  ignorance  is  the 
fountain  of  all  other  evils.  Sin  is  disease, 
error,  desperation.  Any  idea  of  a  conscience  is 
mere  "  infant-school  morality."'^  And  the  same 
must  be  said  of  the  idea  of  God.  This  position 
has  been  taken  with  unusual  confidence  by 
some  of  the  most  prominent  opponents  of  the 
existence  of  God.  Thus,  Mr.  Atkinson  and  Miss 
Martineau  have  declared,  in  their  "  Letters," 
that  they  do  not  recognize  the  existence  of 
morality.  Miss  Martineau  speaks  of  having 
"  finally  dismissed  all  notion  of  subjection  to  a 

*  lUichi'T,  Der  Gottes-Bcgriff  (1874),  p.  60. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  42. 


PERSON^IL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.       95 

superior  lawless  Will,  all  the  perplexing  notions 
of  sin  and  responsibility;  "  and  her  master  de- 
clares that  knowledge  "  sees  good  in  evil  and 
the  working  of  general  laws  for  the  general 
good,  and  sees  no  more  sin  in  a  crooked  dis- 
position than  in  a  crooked  stick  in  the  water, 
or  in  a  humpback  or  a  squint."  ^ 

Are  we  ready  to  accept  these  statements  as 
a  settlement  of  the  question?  Apart  from  our 
belief,  based  as  we  think  on  abundant  evidence, 
that  the  Gospel  is  true,  can  we,  as  human  be- 
ings, who  know  not  only  our  own  instincts,  our 
own  needs,  our  own  cravings,  but  who  know 
that  these  instincts  and  cravings  belong,  broadly 
speaking,  to  the  whole  human  race,  —  can  we, 
with  this  knowledge,  accept  undoubtingly  the 
assurance  that  these  ineradicable  convictions,  not 
of  a  few  persons  here  and  there,  but  of  the  whole 
human  race,  have  no  real  foundation  to  rest 
upon,  —  nay,  worse,  that  they  are  superstitious 
delusions  which  stand  in  the  way  of  a  genuine, 
broad,  and  liberal  culture?  Surely  not.  These 
convictions  c  ^  ours  are  as  much  matter  of  fact 
as  any  outward  object  which  we  have  before  our 
eyes.  They  are  as  real  to  us  as  the  craving  for 
food,  as  the  sense  of  weariness  and  fatigue,  as 
the  joyful  consciousness  of  renewed  strength 
and  vigor  after  repose.  And  if  we  are  tempted 
for  a  moment  to  doubt  our  individual  conscious- 

*  letters  on  the  Laws  of  Man's  Nature  and  Development, 
by  II.  G.  Atkinson  and  II.  Martineau,  p.  141. 


■t  t 


96 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


,1 


-    i  * 
J'  I  > 

f    ? 


Bl  ■    ii' 


4- 


ncss,  it  is  verified  by  hundreds,  by  thousands, 
by  millions  of  our  fcUow-mcn. 

(i)  Take  the  case  of  comcicnce.  A  sense  of 
right  and  wrong  is  the  universal  possession  of 
humanity.  In  some  persons  and  in  some  races 
it  is  very  feeble.  In  some  persons  it  is  totally 
lacking.  But  this  no  more  proves  that  man  has 
not  a  conscience,  than  the  existence  of  idiots  or 
madmen  proves  that  man  has  no  intelligence, 
is  not  a  rational  being.  How  do  those  who 
deny  that  conscience  is  an  element  in  the  actual 
constitution  of  man  account  for  its  existence? 
It  is,  they  say,  the  result  of  education,  not 
merely  of  the  individual,  but  of  the  race.  The 
so-called  moral  ideas  have  been  generated  in  the 
long  course  of  human  history.  In  the  struggle 
for  existence,  in  the  endeavor  to  preserve  what 
they  had  acquired,  men  had  to  inflict  suffering 
upon  those  who  sought  to  injure  them.  Out  of| 
,  the  need  of  protection  arose  governments  which 
had  to  punish  those  who  infringed  their  rules; 
and  in  this  way  there  arose  a  sense  of  evil  doing, 
the  hurting  of  others  was  known  to  be  a  thing 
which  entailed  some  kind  of  retribution  upon 
the  author  of  the  injury,  and  thus  the  ideas  of 
right  and  wrong  and  innocence  and  guilt  were 
,  generated  in  the  race.^ 

It  is  impossible  to  deny  the  measure  of  truth 
which  is  contained  in  this  explanation  of  man's 
moral   being.      Without   education   we   should 

1  Compare  H.  Spencer's  "Data  of  Ethics." 


PEKSOXAL   CULTURE  AXD  RELIGION.       97 

probably  not  be  moral  beings  at  all.  But  the 
same  is  true  of  our  rational  nature.  If  it  were 
possible  to  separate  a  child  at  its  birth  from  all 
human  antl  educational  influences,  that  child 
would  r^rovv  up  hardly  different  from  a  brute. 
If  such  a  case  were  found,  should  we  have  a 
right  to  say  that  this  particular  human  being 
was  not  rational?  Should  we  have  a  right  to 
put  it  in  the  class  of  the  brute  creation?  Cer- 
tainly not.  We  should  know  that  the  nature 
was  there,  although  undeveloped,  —  that,  if  it 
had  been  properly  educated,  it  would  have 
come  forth  into  activity,  as  in  the  case  of  men 
who  received  a  normal  training.  We  know, 
too,  that  no  amount  of  training  or  educ:ition 
or  discipline  would  develop  intelligence  in  the 
mere  brute.  Here,  therefore,  there  is  an  origi- 
nal, essential  difference  between  Jthe  r^nn  and 
the  mere  animal.  The  one  may,  by  neglect, 
be  allowed  to  fall  back  almost  to  the  level  of 
the  other,  l^y  no  possibility  can  the  brute  be 
developed  into  the  man. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  moral  nature.  Unless 
it  had  in  man  a  real  existence,  it  could  not  be 
educated.  You  cannot  produce  the  sense  of 
right  and  wrong  in  the  mere  brute,  although 
in  various  ways  that  sense  may  be  destroyed 
in  man.  Let  us  grant  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  state  of  our  conscience,  like  the  condition 
of  our  reason,  is  the  result  of  education.  Our 
moral  life  begins  with  the  utterances  of  author- 


Ri     hi 


';i 


'\ 


'■■f 

.:lU 


I 


'Mi 

i  '  j 
1  'i 


;'! 


I 


Ml! 


■j; 


98 


WITNESSES   TO   CrfK/ST. 


ity.  VVc  believe  what  wc  are  told  as  to  ri{^ht 
and  wronj;.  But  we  do  not  believe  unqiiestion- 
ingly.  We  brinj;  the  judf^ments  and  teachings 
of  others  before  the  bar  of  our  own  judgment 
and  conscience,  and  test  them  by  our  own 
reason  ;uul  moral  sense.  And  when  wc  have 
once  acquired  the  convictions  which  are  partly 
the  result  of  education,  partly  the  outcome  of 
our  own  thouj:jht,  we  no  more  can  part  with  them, 
unless  some  injury  is  inflicted  n\)o\\  our  moral 
nature,  than  wc  can  part  with  the  principles  of  ac- 
curate thinking;,  unless  our  intellect  is  destroyed. 
Men  do  not  know  the  rules  of  the  syllogism 
by  intuition.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  many  men 
violate  them  without  any  consciousness  of  think- 
ing inaccurately.  Let  them,  however,  get  clearly 
to  understand  those  rules,  and  they  can  no  more 
deny  them  than  they  can  deny  their  own  exist- 
ence. So  with  the  moral  perceptions  by  which 
men  are  lighted  in  the  hfe  of  duty.  In  one 
sense  they  are  intuitive ;  they  arc  not  the  result 
of  any  process  of  reasoning,  they  shine  by  their 
own  light.  Yet  there  arc  men  who  have  pos- 
sessed them  in  very  slight  measure,  and  we  may 
admit  the  possibility  of  men  being  found  in 
whom  they  have  no  place.  When,  however,  the 
conscience  has  once  been  educated  to  discern 
between  good  and  evil,  it  retains  its  moral  vision; 
it  will  not  be  driven  from  its  new  post  of  vantage 
unless  some  great  injury  is  inflicted  upon  the 
constitution  to  which  it  belongs. 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.       99 

Can  we.  then,  believe  that  conscience  is  a 
mere  accident  in  human  nature,  generated  by 
circumstances  and  by  experience ;  or  arc  we 
driven  to  the  conchision  that  it  is  an  elementary 
part  of  the  constitution  of  man?  We  cannot 
hesitate  as  to  which  of  these  opinions  we  should 
adopt.  Our  reason  unites  with  our  inward  con- 
sciousness in  the  testimony  that  we  are  moral 
beings,  lighted  by  the  lamp  of  righteousness  and 
duty,  constrained  by  an  inner  law  to  walk  in 
that  light  which  shines  upon  us  from  a  higher 
world. 

(2)  It  may  be  safely  said  that,  ultimately,  the 
idea  of  conscience  and  the  idea  of  God  \\'\\\  stand 
or  fall  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the| 
same  society.  If  there  is  nothing  in  the  universe' 
but  matter,  if  thought  is  a  mere  attribute  of 
matter  and  the  result  of  its  organization,  then 
the  idea  of  God  is  forever  banished  from  the 
realm  of  thought,  and  conscience  can  be  no 
more  than  the  description  of  a  state  which  is 
the  result  of  a  certain  kind  of  culture. 

This  subject  w^ill  be  considered,  in  its  specu- 
lative as[)cct,  more  particularly,  in  the  lecture 
on  Materialism.  At  present  we  have  to  deal 
with  it  more  immediately  as  a  practical  question. 
That  the  idea  of  God  is  almost  universal  among 
men,  no  one  thinks  of  denying.  That  it  is  al- 
most inseparable  from  the  idea  of  right  and 
wrong,  is  equally  certain.  Indeed,  the  great 
German  metaphysician,  Kant,  found  in  the  cer- 


III 


il 


lOO 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


\\i 


tainty  and  authority  of  conscience  the  one  con- 
clusive proof  of  the  existence  of  God.  The 
"  catc^'orical  imperative "  of  the  conscience 
was  tile  supreme,  undeniable  truth  in  the  con- 
stitution of  man,  and  drew  after  it,  as  a  necessity, 
a  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  supreme  Lawgiver 
and  Judge.  Doubtless  it  is  this  inner  wit- 
ness to  truth  and  goodness,  this  inner  judge 
which  refuses  to  resolve  all  human  action  into 
a  mere  calculation  of  consequences,  into  a  mere 
question  of  profit  and  loss,  and  demands  that 
men  shall  do  right  and  shall  not  do  wrong, 
which  makes  men  hesitate  to  believe  that  there 
is  no  God.  At  any  rate,  few  men  will  avow  such 
a  belief,  and  even  those  who  will  not  maintain 
the  affirmative  on  this  question  will  generally 
take  refuge  in  the  plea  of  ignorance. 

Men  like  Dr.  Biichner  are  bolder.  The  idea 
of  God,  in  their  view,  is  as  much  a  childish  su- 
perstition as  the  idea  of  sin.  It  is  the  offspring 
of  ignorance  and  fear.^  Petronius,  according  to 
him,  was  right  when  he  said  that  Fear  was  the 
first  maker  of  Gods  in  the  world  ("  Primus  in 
orbe  Deos  fecit  timor").  Mr.  Mill,*'^  who  seems 
to  have  had  Biichner  as  well  as  Petronius  in  his 
mind,  remarks:  "The  old  saying,  'Primus  in 
orbe  Deos  fecit  timor,'  I  hold  to  be  untrue, 
or  to   contain,  at  most,  only  a  small   amount 


*  lUichner,  "Der  Gottes-lkgriff  "  (i874),p.  14.   Compare  his 
"Kraft  und  Stoff :  "  "Die  Gottes-Idce." 

'"*  Three  Essays  on  Religion,  by  J.  S.  Mill,  p.  100. 


i.j 


PEiiSONAL   CULTrRR  AXD  RELIC lOy.      10 1 


of  truth.  Belief  in  gods  had,  I  conceive, 
even  in  the  rudest  minds,  a  more  honorable 
origin." 

It  certainly  docs  seem  strange  that  Dr. 
Biichner  should  assign  such  a  parentage  to  an 
idea  which,  he  tells  us,  here  agreeing  with  all 
trustworthy  witnesses,  is  wanting  among  certain 
barbarous  nations,  but  is  the  common  possession 
of  all  civilized  peoples.  The  idea  of  God  and 
of  duty  does  not  die  out  of  men's  minds  as  they 
advance  in  knowledge  and  in  civilization.  It 
grows  deeper  and  stronger  and  more  tenacious. 
Man  feels — and  no  amount  of  civilization  can 
educate  him  out  of  the  feeling  —  that  he  needs 
God.  "  If  God  did  not  exist,"  said  Voltaire,  "  it 
would  be  necessary  to  invent  him."  He  little 
thought  how  soon  his  saying  would  be  verified. 
The  French  people  at  the  Revolution  professed 
to  abolish  the  Deity  along  with  the  historical 
institutions  of  their  country,  liut  they  found 
they  could  live  longer  without  the  government 
of  kings  than  they  could  without  the  worship 
of  Almighty  God.  The  restoration  of  religion, 
in  some  shape,  was  effected  long  before  the 
restoration  of  monarchy.  Robespierre  sent  the 
revolutionary  atheists  to  the  guillotine,  and  cel- 
ebrated the  festival  of  the  Supreme  Being.^  It 
is  a  striking  comment  on  the  boast  tlut  the 
hypothesis  of  a  Deity  is  as  unnecessary  in 
human  life  as  it  is  in  physical  science. 

1  June  8,  1794.     Thiers,  "  French  Revolution,"  chap.  xxxv. 


V. 


102 


IVITNESSES   TO  CI/R/ST. 


i 


i;;'^ 


(3)  VVc  have  just  referred  to  the  assertion 
that  the  idea  of  God  was  the  child  of  ignorance 
and  fear.  Tliis  is  [glaringly  untrue;  but  it  has  a 
measure  of  truth  lyinj;  near  to  it.  Man's  fears 
of  God  would  rather  lead  him  to  cast  doubts 
upon  the  fact  of  the  Divine  existence.  Jiut  con- 
science is  too  strong  for  his  sophistry  and  cas- 
uistry. Mis  fears  do  constrain  him  to  ask 
whether  God  has  revealed  Himself,  how  lie  is 
disposed  towards  man,  and  in  what  way  His 
offending  creatures  may  draw  near  to  Him. 

For  men  are  conscious  of  sin,  are  troubled  by 
the  thought  of  guilt,  of  a  past  wliich  they  can- 
not efface,  by  the  consciousness  of  a  present 
feebleness  which  they  cannot  cure,  by  the  pros- 
pect of  a  future  which  is  all  unknown.  Look  at 
these  facts  of  human  consciousness,  and  consider 
their  bearing  on  this  subject  of  culture.  What 
possibility  is  there  of  a  free  and  broad  culture  in 
a  soil  so  choked  with  weeds?  This  sense  of  guilt, 
this  inner  grief  which  darkens  all  the  higher  life, 
is  an  effectual  barrier  against  the  entrance  of  the 
influences  which  would  foster  and  strengthen 
and  discipline  the  powers  of  the  soul.  There 
can  be  no  true  freedom,  and  therefore  no  har- 
monious development,  expansion,  until  the  soul 
knows  of  a  God  who  is  a  Father,  pardoning, 
helping,  blessing. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  believe  no  true 
halting-place  can  be  found  between  material- 
ism and  the  Gospel,  between  the  system  which 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGIOX-      I03 


ignores  God  and  the  system  whicli  tells  us  aii- 
tiioritativcly  liow  wc  may  be  at  peace  with  God. 
iJcism  has  i)een  tried  over  and  over  aj^ain.  It 
has  been  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found 
wanting.  Deism  cannot  even  deliver  us  from 
any  of  the  ditficultics  sui)i)osed  to  i)e  connected 
with  the  Christian  Revelation.  The  late  Mr. 
Mill  has  told  us  in  his  Autobiography,'  that,  as 
acfainst  the  deist,  liishop  Hutler's  argument  is 
irresistible.  Grant  the  existence  of  a  God,  and 
take  the  world  as  it  is,  and  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  the  Christian  Revelation  which  docs  not  meet 
us  when  wc  rcj^ard  the  world  in  which  we  live  as 
tile  sphere  of  Divine  <^ovcrnment.  We  shall  not' 
escape  the  difficulties  of  belief  by  surrenderintj 
the  Christian  Revelation  and  falling  back  upon 
the  belief  in  a  God  who  is  revealed  only  in  na- 
ture, in  history,  and  in  conscience. 

(4)  But  although  we  shall  gain  nothini^  by 
adopting  deism  instead  of  Christianity,  we  shall 
lose  much  by  the  exchange.  There  is  no  other 
religion  which  even  professes  to  do  what  the 
Gospel  promises  to  those  who  become  followers 
of  the  Christ.  Suppose  we  undertake  the  edu- 
cation of  a  human  being,  and  begin  by  asking 
where  and  how  he  may  obtain  a  clear  light  to 
guide  liim  through  the  intricacies  of  "  this 
troublesome  world,"  how  he  may  free  his  inner 
man  from  the  cloud  of  guilt  whicli  broods  over 
it,    how  he   may  obtain   strength  to    fight   the 

1  He  repeats  it  in  his  "Essays  on  Religion,"  p.  214. 


104 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


i 


battle  of  life,  —  in  short,  how  he  may  so  free  all 
the  powers  of  his  nature  from  impediments 
which  check  their  exercise,  how  he  may  intro- 
duce into  them  a  principle  which  shall  reduce 
them  to  harmony  and  at  the  same  time  stimulate 
them  to  work,  —  what  system  is  there  on  earth 
that  professes  to  give  answers  to  questions  like 
these?  Is  it  enough  to  listen  to  the  positivist, 
and  hear  that  we  know  only  matter  and  its 
qualities,  while  we  are  forced  to  believe  in  some 
mysterious  force  pervading  all  matter,  of  which, 
however,  we  can  have  no  certain  knowledge? 
Will  such  an  assurance  strike  the  shackles  off 
the  wrists  of  men  who  are  in  spiritual  bondage, 
or  restore  the  spiritual  paralytic  to  sound  health 
and  vigor?  Shall  we  obtain  a  more  satisfactory 
answer  from  the  modern  apostle  of  culture 
without  Christianity,  who  tells  us  that  God  is  "  a 
power  or  stream  of  tendency  not  ourselves  which 
makes  for  righteousness,"  and  that  religion  is 
"morality  touched  with  emotion"?  Imagine 
Saint  Paul  giving  this  answer  to  the  agonized 
conscience  asking  what  must  be  done  in  order  that 
it  might  be  saved  !  Imagine  this  for  an  answer: 
"  Believe  in  a  power  not  yourself  which  makes 
for  righteousness,  and  practise  a  morality  which 
is  not  a  mere  hard,  dry  conformity  to  law,  but  a 
morality  \vhich  is  lightened  by  sentiment  and 
emotion  !  "  This  is  certainly  a  strange  way  of 
setting  men  free,  and  sending  them  on  their 
way  rejoicing. 


PEI^SOXAL   CULTURE  AXD  RELIGIOX.      105 

(5)  We  know  what  the  Gospel  professes  to 
do  for  men,  and  we  know  also  what  it  has  done. 
We  know  what  it  did  for  Saint  Paul  nearly  two 
thousand  years  a^o  ;  we  know  what  it  did  for 
Luther  nearly  four  hundred  ye.^rs  ago,  and  what 
it  has  done  for  manv  more  before  and  after  the 
days  of  the  great  Reformer.  Certainly  our  Lord 
has  not  left  Himself  without  witnesses  of  the 
truth  of  His  promises, —  of  the  reality  of  the 
blessings  which  lie  professed  to  prepare  for 
those  who  received  1 1  is  message.  We  have  a 
double  testimony  to  His  fidelity.  We  have  the 
history  of  the  Cln-istjiui  society  in  its  onward 
progress  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  this  hour, 
and  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  manifested 
lives  and  of  the  inward  e.\perience  of  individ- 
ual_Christians,  We  believe  that  th'Te  is  no 
comparison  between  the  Christian  life,  whether 
seen  in  the  individual  or  in  society,  and  the  life 
of  those  who  are  "  without  Christ." 
.  We  do  not,  of  course,  deny  that  there  have 
been  many  eminent  and  highly  cultivated  men 
who  have  lived  "  without  God  in  the  world," 
and  have  passed  away  without  faith  or  hope  in 
His  promises,  or  even  in  His  existence.  It  may 
be  that  instances  can  be  found,  in  the  history  of 
mankind,  of  high  moral  as  well  as  intellectual 
qualities  in  those  who  have  had  no  religious 
beliefs  or  principles.  But  we  may  safely  assert 
that  such  are  to  be  found  chiefly  among  those 
who  have  indirectly  come  under  religious,  and 


I 


Mil 


!' 


Vu 


r!<l' 


io6 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST 


especially  under  Christian,  influences;  further, 
that  such  cases  arc  cxtcptional ;  and  finally, 
that  even  the  best  of  such  examples  are  found 
defective  when  compared  with  the  noblest  ex- 
amples of  Christian  culture. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  Autobiography 
of  Mr.  John  Mill,  one  of  the  most  eminent  repre- 
sentatives of  the  secular  school,  and  a  distin- 
guished writer.  Let  any  thoughtful  person  read 
that  book,  and  we  are  quite  sure  what  his  judg- 
ment will  be  when  he  is  asked  whether  he  could 
believe  that  a  Christian  would  gain  anything, 
socially  and  morally,  by  abandoning  his  faith 
in  Christ  and  adopting  the  principles  of  that 
eminent  man's  life. 

It  will,  however,  be  better  to  draw  our  illus- 
tration from  another  people.  One  of  the  most 
splendid  examples  of  a  merely  worldly  culture 
^^'  i  was  undoubtedly  the  great  German,  J.  W. 
[Goethe.  He  was  a  man  who  in  certain  re- 
spects was  inferior  to  none  in  the  fascination 
which  he  exercised  over  some  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished men  of  his  age.  It  is  not  difficult  to 
account  for  this  influence.  He  was  one  of  the 
wonders  of  his  time.  His  physical  beauty,  his 
capacious  intellect,  his  harmonious  culture,  his 
serene  self-satisfaction  and  calm  self-idolatry, 
formed  a  combination  which  with  most  men 
proved  overpowering.  Yet  study  his  character 
irr  the  admirable  English  biography  of  him,^  and 

'  Lewes's  Life  of  Goethe. 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION      lO'J 


ask  whether  you  would  really  desire  to  be  such 
an  one  as  he.  The  cold  selfishness  which  was ' 
his  strongest  moving  principle  strikes  upon  the 
heart  which  has  been  touched  by  the  love  of 
Christ  like  a  wind  that  comes  from  fields  of  ice 
and  snow.  The  whole  life  of  the  man  revolved 
round  self.  How  could  it  be  otherwise  when 
he  was  ignorant  of  the  true  centre  of  universal 
being?  One  of  the  most  eminent  of  his  con- 
temporaries, Friedrich  Schiller,  wrote  thus  of 
him  :  "  To  be  frequently  with  Goethe  would  make 
me  wretched.  Even  with  his  nearest  friends 
he  has  no  sclf-forgetfulness,  no  effusion ;  he  is 
in  no  ordinary  degree  an  egotist"  ^ 

Even  the  author  of"  Natural  Religion,"  while 
extolling  some  of  the  "  great  and  rare  virtues  " 
of  Goethe,  is  constrained  to  admit  that  "  there 
remains  the  fact  that  the  idea  of  duty  and  self- 
sacrifice  appears  not  to  be  very  sacred  to  his 
mind,  —  rather,  perhaps,  to  be  irritating,  embar- 
rassing, odious  to  him."  ^ 

Compare  this  character  for  a  moment  with 
that  of  a  man  belonging  to  a  nation  which,  as 
a  whole,  in  a  moral  view  compares  unfavorably 
with  the  German,  —  Saint  Francois  dc  Sales,  the 
saintly  Bishop  of  Geneva.  Saint  Francis  was 
also   a  man  of  the  highest  culture   and  of  the 

1  Quoted  in  IIaml)crgcr's  "Christcnlluiin  uiul  niodernc  Cul- 
tiir,"  bd.  i.  s.  12.  The  view  of  Goeiiie's  character  given  in 
Mr.  Ilutton's  delightful  essay  (vol.  ii.  Essay  i)  does  not  differ 
from  this,  and  deserves  careful  study. 

-  Natural  Religion,  part  i.  chap.  v.  p.  98. 


i 


1  t| 


io8 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


x.  \ 


11 


I" '  '  i 


most  remarkable  powers  of  fascination,  although 
he  had  derived  his  power  from  a  very  different 
source.  Let  these  two  men  be  compared,  and 
then  let  us  say  whetlier  secularism  or  Chris- 
tianity produces  the  finer  and  richer  fruits.  It 
would  be  easy  to  mention  bishops  of  our  own 
race  no  less  remarkable  than  the  Bishop  of 
Geneva.  Let  any  one,  however,  compare  the 
Christian  Savoyard  with  the  mere  man  of  cul- 
ture, perhaps  the  most  perfect  specimen  of  the 
kind  which  Germany  or  the  world  has  produced, 
and  let  him  mark  that  the  humility,  the  sweet- 
ness, the  tenderness,  the  burning  love  of  the 
Christian,  have  all  been  acquired  in  the  school 
of  "  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified." 

Shall  we,  for  a  moment,  go  to  France  for  the 
man  of  worldly  culture  and  to  Germany  for  the 
Christian?  There  are  few  more  eminent  in  his 
own  way  than  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau.  And  this 
is  what  one  of  his  countrymen  says  of  him: 
"  Life  without  actions;  life  entirely  resolved  into 
affections  and  half-sensual  thoughts ;  do-noth- 
ingness setting  up  for  a  virtue;  cowardliness 
with  voluptuousness ;  fierce  pride  with  nullity 
underneath  it  .  .  .  there  is  Rousseau  !  "  Such 
is  the  judgment  pronounced  on  Rousseau  by 
Michelet  in  his  "  Life  of  Luther."  This  is  the 
man  who  said  of  his  own  "  Confessions :  "  "  Let 
the  trumpet  of  judgment  sound  when  it  may,  I 
will  come  with  this  book  in  my  hand  and  chal- 
lenge any  one  present  to  say,  if  he  dare,  '  I  was 


H' 


.  « 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.      IO9  ■^^ 

better  than  that  man.'"     No  wonder  that  Mi-  '^k\ 

chelct,  when  endeavoring  to  set  forth  the  great-  "  ' 

ness  of  the  character  of  the  Cliristian  Luther,  '^ 

should  think  of  this  wretched    unbehever  as  a  s;; 

contrast.     Certainly  we  should  hardly  think  of  ^^  | 

the  robust  Thuringian  peasant  and  monk  as  an 

example  of  the  highest  culture ;    and  yet  who 

does  not  feel   that   the  words    spoken  by  him, 

in  prospect  of  that  dread  day  of  trial,  arc  the 

utterance  of  a  finer  spirit?     "When  I  think  of 

it,"  he  says,  "  I  feel  that  I  could  pass  a  sponge 

over  all  that  I  have  written.     To  have  to  render 

to  God  an  account  of  every  idle  word,  —  it  is 

terrible  !  " 

But  the  influence  of  Christianity  is  seen  not 
merely  in  the  choicest  examples  of  its  power, 
but  in  every  society  into  which  it  has  entered. 
The  Gospel  has  created  a  new  morality  among 
men,  and  the  Church  has  been  the  source  of 
streams  of  mercy  and  blessing  which  have  flowed 
forth  upon  the  poor  and  miserable  with  healing, 
restoring,  and  regenerating  power.  Christianity  j 
has  given  to  the  world  a  type  of  character  un- 
known to  heathenism,  a  type  of  such  lofty  and 
ideal  beauty  as  man  had  never  before  even 
conceived.  If  the  Christian  ideal  of  life  were 
abolished,  suppressed,  forgotten,  —  if  the  life 
and  character  of  Christ  were  blotted  out  from 
human  consciousness,  —  what  is  there  in  the 
world  which  could  be  counted  worthy  to  take 
its  place?    Whence   but  from  Jesus  could  we  i 


i  I 


-  !M 


'f* 


''■: 


PP 


-11  ■' 


m 


no 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


learn  the  lesson  of  profound  humility,  of  loving 
gentleness  and  patience,  of  glorious  self-sacri- 
fice, which  constitute  the  most  lovely  elements 
in  the  noblest  of  human  characters? 

"  It  was  reserved  for  Christianity,"  says  Mr. 
Lecky,'  and  he  is  no  over-partial  witness,  "  to 
present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character,  which 
through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries 
has  inspired  the  hearts  of  men  with  an  impas- 
sioned love ;  has  shown  itself  capable  of  acting 
on  all  ages,  nations,  temperaments,  and  con- 
ditions ;  has  been  not  only  the  highest  pattern 
of  virtue,  but  the  strongest  incentive  to  its  prac- 
tice; and  has  exercised  so  deep  an  influence 
that  it  may  be  truly  said  that  the  simple  record 
of  three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done  more 
to  regenerate  and  to  sofcen  mankind  than  all 
the  disquisitions  of  philosophers,  and  all  the 
exhortations  of  moralists." 

We  have  already  spoken  of  the  belief  in  a 
future  life  as  affecting  our  view  of  the  nature 
of  that  culture  which  is  adapted  for  creatures 
like  ourselves.  \\\\\.  there  is  another  considera- 
tion connected  with  the  expectation  of  immor- 
tality ;  we  refer  to  its  power  as  a  motive  of 
action.  I'^ven  Mr.  Mill  allows  that  the  "  super- 
natural religions  must  always  possess  "  one  ad- 
vantage "over  the  religion  of  humanity,  —  the 
prospect  that   they  hold   out  to  the  individual 

1  History  of  European  Morals,  vol.  li.  chap,  iv,  p.  8,  Amer. 
ed. ;  p.  9,  Kng.  Svo  ed. 


PERSONAL   CULTURE  AXD  RELIGION.     Ill 


of  a  life  after  death ;  "  and  he  afterwards  admits, 
that,  "  if  there  is  nothing  to  prove  "  the  reahty 
of  this  hope,  "  there  is  as  Httle  in  our  knowledt^e 
and  experience  to  contradict  it."^  Ikit  surely 
it  must  be  apparent  that  a  merely  secular  cul- 
ture provides  only  for  the  present  life,  and,  in 
carrying  on  its  work,  can  derive  no  help  from 
a  motive  which  has  seldom  altogether  lost  its 
power  among  men. 

But  again  wc  must  remind  ourselves  that 
there  is  only  One  who  professes  to  give  us 
certain  knowledge  concerning  the  life  to  come. 
It  is  "our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  abol- 
ished death,  and  hath  brought  life  and  immor- 
tality to  light  through  the  Gospel."^  He  has 
gone  through  the  gates  of  death  into  the  land 
of  everlasting  life,  and  He  has  said  what  He 
alone  had  the  right  to  say,  "  Where  I  am,  there 
shall  also  My  servant  be."  "  I  go  to  prepare 
a  place  for  you,"'^  It  is  not  that  we  would  base 
the  claims  of  Christ  either  on  our  hopes  or  on 
our  fears  for  the  future  alone.  Jesus  Christ 
has  claims  upon  us  apart  from  His  promise  of 
a  future  life  of  blessedness.  Even  if  He  were 
not  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  He  would  still  be 
the  highest  and  the  noblest  of  men.  F.ven  if 
He  were  not  the  King  of  Angels,  seated  on 
the  throne  of  heaven.  He  would  at  least  be 
the    Sovereign   of   Humanity,    whose   image   is 

1  Three  Essays,  pp.  ii8,  120. 

'■*  2  Tim.  i.  10.  8  John  xii.  26;  xiv.  2. 


ill 


^h 


m  '^ 


m 


112 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


i 


II 


\i', 


•f  1 


i  I 


enshrined  within  the  heart  of  every  noblest, 
truest,  purest  man  and  woman.  And  he  who 
seeks  to  follow  the  hii^hcst  ideal  of  human  cul- 
ture, he  who  endeavors  to  realize  that  ideal  in 
his  own  life,  will  at  least  desire  and  strive  to 
know  II im  more  perfectly. 

On  this  subject  one  writer  of  eminence  has 
been  quoted.  Let  us  listen  to  another  much 
further  removed  from  the  faith  of  the  Church; 
let  us  listen  once  more  to  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill. 
'*  About  the  life  and  sayini^s  of  Jesus,"  he  re- 
marks, "  there  is  a  stamp  of  personal  orif^inality, 
combined  with  profundity  of  insight,  which  .  .  . 
must  place  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  ...  in  the 
very  first  rank  of  the  men  of  sublime  genius  of 
whom  our  species  can  boast.  When  this  pre- 
eminent genius  is  combined  with  the  qualities 
of  probably  the  greatest  moral  reformer  and 
martyr  to  that  mission,  who  ever  existed  upon 
earth,  religion  cannot  be  said  to  have  made  a 
bad  choice  in  pitching  on  this  man  as  the  ideal 
representative  and  guide  of  humanity  ;  nor, 
even  now,  would  it  be  easy,  even  for  an  un- 
believer, to  find  a  better  translation  of  the  rule 
of  virtue  from  the  abstract  into  the  concrete, 
than  to  endeavor  so  to  live  that  Christ  would 
approve  our  life."  ^ 

If  among  those  who  are  listening  to  these 
words  there  are,  unhappily,  any  present  who 
own  no  allegiance  to  Him  who  has  seldom  failed 

^  Three  Essays,  pp.  254,  255. 


PERSOiYAL   CULTURE  AND  RELIGION.     II3 

to  extort  homage,  even  from  His  adv^crsarics, 
let  them,  for  their  own  souls'  sake,  pause  and 
ask  themselves  whether,  in  the  cultivation  of 
their  minds  and  In  the  conduct  of  their  lives,  it 
is  wise  to  i^^nore  such  an  influence  as  His.  liut, 
beyond  all  this,  they  may  well  inquire,  further, 
whether  He  may  not  have  claims  upon  them 
which  are  not  only  stronj^  and  binding  in  time, 
but  which  remain  unexhausted  throughout 
eternity. 


,i]j 


LECTURE    IV. 

THE   UNITY  OF   CHRISTIAN   DOCTRINE. 

Does  the  Hible  teach  definite  Religious  Truth  ?  —  Denied.  — 
What  may  Ijc  meant  by  the  Denial  ? —  Divine  Revelation  in 
Christ.  —  Gradually  unfolded.  —  True  DeveIo]Mnent.  —  Il- 
lustrated in  the  Writings  of  Saint  Paul.  —  Later  Examples  of 
Development  in  the  History  of  the  Church.  —  Schools  of 
Thought.  —  Development  and  Accretion  distinguished.  — 
Illustrations  of  Unity  in  Christian  Teaching  :  i.  The  Na- 
ture of  God.  —  Represented  as  possessing  Human  Attributes 
and  as  being  far  removed  from  Humanity.  —  Deistic  and 
Pantiieistic  Conceptions.  —  2.  The  Character  of  God.  — 
Divine  Decrees  and  Human  Liberty.  —  3.  The  Nature  of 
Man.  —  Original  .Sin.  —  Concupiscence.  —  4.  Eschatology. 
Future  Retribution.  —  Three  current  Tiieories.  —  Not  abso- 
lutely Irreconcilable.  —  Analogy  of  the  Hook  of  Nature  and 
Science  with  the  Book  of  Grace  and  Theology. 

WHAT  is  Truth?  Is  there  such  a  thing 
apart  from  the  individual  mind?  Can 
wc  speak  of  objective  truth,  or  is  it  only  sub- 
jective,—  that  which  every  individual  mind 
troweth  ?  And  if  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
definite  scientific  truth,  is  there  also  spiritual 
truth?  Is  there  such  a  thing  as  definite  religious 
doctrine,  which  must  be  accepted  as  the  true 
representation  of  supernatural  facts  and  relations, 
without  alteration  or  modification? 


I  111 


THE   UNITY  OF  CIlRISTIAy  DOCTRIXE.     I  I  5 

Further,  if  tlicre  is  such  a  thinj;  as  objective 
rclij^ious  truth,  docs  the  Bible  ^  contain  it  and 
dechire  it?  Has  the  Gospel  message  anything 
definite,  unchangeable,  permanent;  or  does  it 
merely  consist  of  a  set  of  propositions,  more  or 
less  indefinite  and  vague,  which  each  age  mod- 
ifies for  itself  according  to  its  own  point  of  view 
and  its  own  moral  education? 

These  are  important  questions ;  and  they  arc 
of  special  importance  at  the  present  lime,  when 
it  is  stoutly  maintained  that  the  Bible  does  not 
set  forth  or  compel  assent  to  any  particular 
truths  or  dogmas,  but  that  it  yields  up  to  each 
age,  to  each  society,  and  almost  to  each  indi- 
vidual, very  nearly  what  they  please,  —  in  short, 
that  men  bring  their  opinions  to  the  Bible,  in- 
stead of  seeking  guiilance  from  it;  that  they 
simply  search  the  Scriptures,  not  that  they  may 
learn  and  humbly  accept  the  truth  which  they 
contain,  but  that  they  may  find  texts  and  pas- 
sages which  they  will  be  able  to  quote  in  con- 
firmation of  conclusions  at  which  they  have 
already  arrived. 

It  is  easy  to  exaggerate  these  accusations, 
and  they  have  been  brought  forward  in  very 
exaggerated  forms.  But  we  must  grant  that 
they  rest  upon  a  foundation  of  truth.     And  it 


1  It  will  be  observed  that,  in  the  present  series  of  lectures, 
no  notice  is  taken  of  the  scientific  objections  to  the  historical 
character  of  the  early  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  On  this 
point  see  Note  D. 


;  il;. 


i^-  : 


'li 


:.;r' 


11 


m 

I*; 

fit'' 


K 


u6 


wrrxEssEs  to  ciirist. 


'♦s 

?    '       P 

J 

■^ 

-■ 

V. 

i.-lH' 

X; 

fi 

11-^:    . 

*^ 

\>^ ,  ■ ' 

«       t- 

1.1'ir  ,' 

'      >f      1 

)  ■  '   ':  ■  1  ' 

^\ 

i' '     '■  '  \ 

*■       1 

i 

y% 

4 

will  be  our  business  to  show  that  the  amount  of 
truth  which  they  contain  is  not  at  variance  with 
our  assertion  of  the  Unity  of  Christian  Doctrine. 
It  may,  therefore,  be  as  well  that  we  should  at 
once  declare  what  wc  mean  by  conceding;  that 
there  has  been  a  threat  variety  of  Christian  teach- 
ini;,  sometimes  even  apparently  contradictory 
tcachin*;,  and  this  not  merely  from  those  whom 
the  Church  has  branded  as  heretics,  but  pro- 
ceeding from  teachers  regarded  as  Orthodox; 
and  further  that  we  should  explain  in  what  sense 
we  assert  the  unity  of  Christian  teachinjjj  and 
the  authority  of  the  IJible  as  the  source  from 
which  that  teaching  has  been  derived. 

That  Christian  truth  has  presented  itself  in 
the  same  form  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  no  rea- 
sonable and  instructed  Christian  will  think  of 
maintaining.  Different  aspects  of  truth  have 
been  prominent  in  different  periods  of  the 
I  Church's  history;  and  there  has  been  a  certain 
■  development  or  unfolding  of  doctrinal  truth,  in 
the  past  ages  of  the  Church,  which  may  perhaps 
be  going  on  at  this  moment,  and  which  may  be 
continued  in  the  future  history  of  religious 
thought.  In  this  supposition  there  is  nothing 
unreasonable,  there  is  nothing  disrespectful  to 
the  original  sacred  deposit,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  least  degree  inconsistent  with  the  unity 
of  Christian  doctrine. 

It  is  of  the   nature  of   all   deeper  truths   to 
'     be  many-sided,  to   reveal  themselves   by  slow 


THE   i'X/TV  OF  C//A'/Sr/AX  DOCTRIXi:.     11/ 

degrees,  to  be  clearer  to  some  niiiuls  than  to  otli- 
crs,  to  be  lost  and  recovered  by  different  men 
and  different  aj^es.  And  this,  which  is  true  of 
truth  in  general  may  well  be  predicated  of  that 
truth  antl  those  doctrines  which  are  the  vehicles 
of  a  Divine  Revelation,  —  which  convey  to  us 
the  thoughts  of  God  concerning  I  lis  own  nature, 
character,  will ;  which  tell  us  of  our  relations  to 
Him,  and  which  lay  down  the  duties  which  flow 
from  those  relations.  And  all  this  is  quite  con- 
sistent with  a  belief  in  the  unity  of  Christian 
doctrine. 

I.  Let  us  remember  that,  accorduig  to  the 
Christian  belief,  God  has  revealed  Himself  to 
man  in  the  person  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  in  a 
human  life;  that  He  has  caused  the  story  of  that 
life,  its  words,  its  deeds,  and  its  sufferings,  to 
be  recorded  for  our  instruction;  further,  that  He 
has  imparted  to  authorized  ambassadors  a  super- 
natural power,  by  which  they  have  been  enabled 
to  explain  to  us  the  meaning  of  that  life  and 
work,  and  of  the  organization,  the  Christian 
Church,  in  which  its  blessings  were  to  be  en-' 
joyed,  and  by  which  its  privileges  were  to  be 
conveyed  to  mankind ;  and  then  we  shall  be 
better  prepared  to  understand  the  process  by 
which  these  truths  have  been  diffused  in  the 
world  and  received  among  men. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  revelation  of  God 
which  is  the  'subject  of  these  testimonies,  —  a 
revelation  of  the  Eternal  and  Infinite,  made  in 


m 


'.  • 


A 


}  i 


ii8 


IVIT.VESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


'<•*    ; 


-^ 


such  a  form  as  to  be  intelligible  to  us,  the  tem- 
poral and  finite,  and  to  all  kinds  of  men  among 
us,  the  smiple  and  the  most  childlike  as  well  as 
the  wisest  and  the  most  subtle.  Let  us  remem- 
ber this,  and  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing in  what  various  degrees  these  heavenly 
truths  will  stand  out  and  be  grasped  and  per- 
ceived by  different  classes  of  minds  and  iii  dif- 
ferent ages  of  the  world. 

The  statement  might  be  illustrated  in  a  thou- 
sand ways,  from  many  different  departments  of 
human  life.  Although  we  have  not  here  to  do 
specially,  or  in  any  direct  sense  at  all,  with  the 
Old  Testament,  we  might  for  a  moment  draw  an 
illustration  from  the  writings  which  it  contains. 
The  Law,  the  Prophets,  the  Psalms,  show  a  re- 
markable development  of  spiritual  truth,  com- 
municated to  those  who  lived  under  the  earlier 
ccononi}',  from  the  time  when  sacrifices  were 
ordained  as  teachers  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth, 
and  simple  general  duties  were  laid  down  in  bare 
precepts,  to  the  time  when  it  was  shown  that  no 
sacrifices  were  of  any  real  value  in  the  sight  of 
God  but  those  which  were  spiritual  in  their 
nature,  and  that  those  simple  precepts  of  early 
ages  must  be  referred  to  eternal  principles 
from  which  they  drew  their  authority  and  their 
sanction. 

Or  again,  if  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament, 
wc  shall  find  the  same  order  of  proceeding.  It 
is   believed    by  those   who   have    most    deeply 


THE   UXITY  OF  CHRISTIAiY  DOCTRINE.     II9 

studied  the  writings  of  the  New  Covenant  that  the 
germs  of  all  spiritual  truth  arc  to  be  found  in  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord.  And  yet  it  would  have 
been  very  difficult  for  us  to  obtain  from  I  lis 
words  many  of  the  truths  which  we  have  learned 
from  the  teaching  of  the  y\postles.  And  He 
Himself  indicated  that  such  was  the  case,  and 
gave  the  reason  for  the  method  which  lie 
pursued. 

He  told  His  disciples  in  His  valedictory  ad- 
dress:^ "I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
you,  but  \'e  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit, 
when  He,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  He  shall 


guide  you  into  all  the  truth. 


He  shall  glo- 


rify Me:   for  He  shall  take  of  Mine,  and  shall 


decl 


are   it  unto    you. 


And 


we    sec 


low 


th 


IS 


promise  was  fulfilled  in  the  later  Books  of  the 
New  Testament.     In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  , 
for  instance,  the  Apostles  received  guidance,  as  | 
they  needed  it,  concerning  the  reception  of  the  \ 
Gentiles   into  the  Church   and  the  rules  to  be 
imposed  upon  them.     But  it  is  especially  in  the 
Apostolic  epistles  that  we  see  the  glorious  ful- 
filment of  this  promise. 

In  the  earlier  revelation  God  had  taught  men 
"by  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners," - 
but  in   the   later   He   spoke   to  them  "by   His 


Son. 


Th 


ere  was  a  unity  as  well  as  a 


ful 


in  the  later  revelation,  distinguishing  it  as  a 

1  John  xvi.  12,  ff.  (Revised  Version). 
«  Ilcb.  i.  I,  2. 


ness 
full 


•9 

■I* 


I 


w 


.'S  ■         ^1 


120 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


splendor  of  truth  from  the  scattered  rays  which 
had  come  before.  But  still  there  were  needed 
many  different  media  of  communication,  and  a 
gradual  and  progressive  teaching,  before  the 
complete  truth  could  shine  into  our  minds.  Even 
those  who  maintain  that  Saint  James,  Saint  Paul, 
Saint  Peter,  and  Saint  John  show  different  reli- 
gious tendencies,  arc  still  witnesses  to  the  fact 
that  different  aspects  of  truth  were  presented  to 
the  Church  from  the  beginning;  and  we  who 
believe  that  there  is  a  most  perfect  harmony 
between  these  early  inspired  teachers  may  be 
encouraged  to  seek  for  a  fundamental  unity  of 
doctrine  in  the  later  teachings  of  Christendom. 

There  is,  indeed,  something  very  beautiful  in 
what  we  may  call  the  progress  of  doctrine. io 
the  writings  of  Saint  Paul.  In  his  earlier  epis- 
tles, those  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans,  he 
deals  with  the  question  of  personal  acceptance 
with  God,  the  first  question  that  must  be  dealt 
with  in  announcing  a  message  of  good  news 
from  God ;  in  the  later,  those  to  the  Ephesians 
and  Colossians,  he  teaches  a  more  advanced 
doctrine  concerning  the  Church  as  the  Body 
of  Christ,  in  which  all  believers  are  members; 
while  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  forms  a 
kind  of  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other. 
And  yet  there  is  absolutely  no  discord ;  there 
is  a  perfect  harmony  between  this  later  teach- 
ing and  the  earlier.  For  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  the  doctrine  of  the  early  epistles  is 


;f 


THE   UXITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRIXE.     121 


\k  !i 


clearly  asserted  :  "  By  grace  are  yc  saved  through 
fiiith ;  "^  and  the  distinctive  teaching  of  the  later 
epistle  concerning  the  15ody^  of  Christ  is  fore- 
shadowed in  the  i-^pistlc  to  the  Romans,  where 
Christians  are  declared  to  be  "  one  body  in 
Christ,  and  severally  members  one  of  another,"  ^ 
and  even  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  as  re- 
corded by  Saint  John,  where  He  says:  "I  am 
the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches."  ^  So  in  the  epis- 
tles of  Saint  John,  there  is  a  wondcrfid  depth 
and  fulness  of  teaching  concerning  our  abiding 
in  Christ,  and  the  life  of  which  we  arc  partakers 
by  reason  of  that  indwelling,  and  of  the  Love 
which  is  the  life  of  God  and  of  man. 

If  we  might,  for  a  moment,  bring  forward  a 
parallel  example  of  this  progress  of  doctrine  in 
the  Church,  we  should  find  it  by  comi)aring 
the  prevailing  teaching  at  the  time  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, or  at  the  beginning  of  the  evangeli- 
cal revival  in  the  eighteenth  century,  with  that 
type  of  doctrine  which  is  most  prominent  in  the 
writings  of  the  more  thoughtful  divines  in  Great 
Britain  and  in  America  at  the  present  time. 
When  the  Reformation  was  under  the  guidance 
of  its  greatest  representative,  Martin  Luther, 
nearly  all  the  distinctive  truths  upon  which  he 
insisted  w^re  supported  mainly  by  quotations 
from  the  Epistles  to  the   Galatians  and  to  the 


1  Eph.  ii.  8. 

"  Eph,  i.  23;  ii.  6;  iv.  4,  iG;   v.  3c 

3  Rom.  xii.  5. 


•»  John  .XV.  i-S. 


%. 


if. 


i|    I 


1! 


s^ 


Il^':'l 


122 


WITNESSES   TO  C FIR  1ST. 


Ifi;  ■:  ^..;«  ■  «■ 


Romans.  It  was  quite  natural  that  it  should 
be  so.  The  urgent  question  of  that  time  was: 
How  shall  a  man  be  just  with  God?  How  was 
personal  justification  to  be  secured?  And  it 
was  very  much  the  same  in  the  cvancjelical 
revival  of  the  last  century.  Religion  had  been 
merged  in  morality,  and  men  were  awakened 
to  ask  whether  this  was  all,  whether  there  was 
any  question  as  to  their  being  right  with  God. 
The  answers  to  these  questionings  were  to  be 
found  in  the  clear  enunciation  of  the  conditions 
on  which  those  who  had  sinned  could  be  ac- 
cepted with  God;  and  for  this  men  turned  nat- 
urally, almost  necessarily,  to  the  early  epistles 
of  Saint  Paul. 

But  a  change  has  come  over  the  type  of  our 
ordinary  teaching  in  these  later  '^  o'-'^,  and  other 
aspects  of  Divine  truth  are  brought  into  greater 
prominence.  We  are  now  seeing  that  religion 
is  not  a  mere  personal,  individual  matter,  but 
that  it  is  also  corporate  and  social ;  moreover, 
wc  get  beyond  the  point  of  view  of  justification, 
and  are  led  into  the  deeper  truths  so  powerfully 
brought  out  by  Saint  John,  —  the  truths  of  life 
in  God  and  of  communion  with  Him  and  with 
His  Son  Jesus  Christ.  And  yet  there  is  no 
want  of  harmony  in  these  different  aspects  of 
truth.  The  circle  of  Divine  Revelation  would  be 
incomplete  if  any  portion  of  this  teaching  were 
withdrawn  from  it;  and  we  are  coming,  more 
and  more,  to  perceive  that  all  these   phases  of 


THE  UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.    1 23 


doctrine  arc  but  rays  from  the  central  sun  of 
truth,  which  must  be  brought  into  a  focus  before 
we  can  know  all  that  God  would  reveal  to  us  of 
His  own  character  and  work. 

There  is,  however,  another  way  in  which  these 
different  phases  of  teaching  present  themselves 
to  us  in  the  histoiy  of  the  Church.  They  ap- 
pear in  Christian  teaching,  not  merely  as  succes- 
sive developments  of  truth,  or  as  those  aspects 
of  truth  which  satisfy  different  ages,  but  as  dis- 
tinguishing different  schools  of  thought,  which 
are  sometimes  distinctive  of  different  nationali- 
ties, and  are  the  result  of  different  providential 
and  educational  training,  and  sometimes  appear 
side  by  side  in  the  same  country  and  in  the 
same  age,  having,  as  it  would  appear,  a  special 
correspondence  with  the  peculiar  intellectual 
type  or  the  special  religious  experience  of  those 
by  whom  they  are  received  or  taught. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  illustrations  of 
these  diverse   types  of  Christian   truth,  neither 
of  which  presents  any  real  deflection  from  the 
general  Christian  tradition  or  the  accepted  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Alex-    ) 
andrian  Scliool  of  Clement  and  Origen  on  the    | 
one  hand,  and  the  Augustinian  School  on    the    \ 
other.     The  characteristics  of  these  schools  arc    • 
strongly  and  clearly  marked.     The  one  has  its 
origin  in  the  sombre  African  theology  of  Ter- 
tullian  and  Cyprian,  and  in  the  logical  and  rhe- 
torical discipline  of  the  great  Augustine.     The 


:(•' 


% 


124 


W/TATESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


Other  derives  its  characteristic  tendencies  from 
Philo  and  the  followers  of  Plato  in  general.  It 
is  beyond  our  present  purpose  to  point  out,  in 
detail,  the  distinctive  differences  of  these  schools, 
which  have  recently  been  made  the  subject  of  care- 
ful investigation.^  Generally  speaking,  the  Alex- 
andrian School  represents  that  side  of  Christian 
teaching  which  takes  a  favorable  view  of  human 
philosophy  and  even  of  non-Christian  religions, 
regarding  the  truth  which  they  contain  as  part 
of  the  light  derived  by  mankind  from  the  eter- 
nal Word;  while  the  Augustinians  would  draw 
more  attention  to  the  errors  of  human  systems, 
as  being  the  work  of  sin  and  the  devil.  So,  too, 
the  Alexandrian  School  would  seem  to  know 
little  of  those  darker  views  of  human  nature 
apart  from  the  grace  of  Christ,  which  were  pro- 
mulgated by  Augustine,  and  which,  from  him, 
became  part  of  the  accredited  teaching  of  the 
Western  Church.  To  some  of  these  points  we 
shall  hereafter  draw  attention.  At  present  it 
may  be  sufficient  to  remark,  that,  while  the 
Alexandrians  mainly  preserv^ed  the  traditional 
teaching  of  Saint  John,  the  Augustinians  were 
profoundly  Pauline  in  their  conceptions.  In 
nearly  every  age  these  two  tendencies  may  b*" 
traced  in  the  Christian  Church;   although,  as  we 

1  The  reader  may  be  referred  to  the  "  Continuity  of  Chris- 
..>  Thought,"  by  the  Rev.  A.  V.  G.  Allen  ;  and  to  the  "  Chris- 
■    .u  Platonists  of  Alexandria"  (Banipton  Lectures  for  1S86), 
b-    "  r.  Charles  Bigg. 


'* 


THE   UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     1 25 

have  remarked,  one  may  be  more  prominent  at 
one  time  and  another  at  another.  In  our  own 
day  the  Johanncan  tendency  is  conspicuous  in 
the  disciples  of  Schieiermacher,  Coleridge,  and 
Maurice;  while  the  Augustinian  School  has  two 
conspicuous  representatives  in  the  Puritan  Cah'i- 
nistic  School  and  in  the  Churchly  School,  —  the 
one  embodied  in  the  evangelical  revival  and  its 
legitimate  descendants ;  the  other  in  the  Oxford 
movement  and  in  the  whole  rising  of  the  idea  of 
corpora'-e  life,  which  is  so  potent  an  ingredient 
in  contemporary  religious  thought.  As  we  have 
said,  these  different  tendencies  come  before  us 
sometimes  as  a  process  of  development,  some- 
times as  representative  of  different  schools  of 
thought.  But  in  either  case  they  rest  upon  the 
same  basis  of  fundamental  truth;  and  amid  all 
their  superficial  differences  there  is  a  marvellous 
unity  distinguishable  in  the  inner  kernel  which 
they  contain. 

But  here  it  may  be  necessary  to  point  out 
somewhat  more  exactly  what  we  mean  by  the 
development  of  doctrine,  since  it  may  appear  to 
some  that  we  are,  by  using  such  an  expression, 
disguising  a  fictitious  unity  by  making  it  appear 
real.  And  this  has  become  the  more  necessary, 
since  new  forms  of  Christian  doctrines  have,  in 
recent  times,  been  brought  forward  as  develop- 
ments of  the  original  deposit,  when  they  have  in 
fact  been  accretions,  —  doctrines  and  opinions 
superinduced  upon  the  old,  and  not  drawn  from 


''4  ti 


\f  <  '1 


k 


126 


IVITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


11 


it  by  any  legitimate  process  of  deduction  or  de- 
velopment. An  illustration  of  the  two  methods 
may  be  found  in  the  Nicene  doctrine  of  the  Per- 
son of  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  the  Vat- 
ican doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  on  the  other. 
The  one  is  lawful  development,  the  explicit 
enunciation  of  a  doctrine  which  had  been  im- 
plictly  taught  from  the  beginning.  The  other 
is  unlawful  accretion,  being  a  doctrine  utterly 
unknown  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church  and 
for  many  an  age  afterwards,  having  no  faintest 
germ  of  its  life  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles 
or  of  the  first  Fathers  and  teachers  and  witnesses 
of  the  Church  and  its  doctrines.  The  Nicene 
Fathers  simply  added  new  definitions,  rendered 
necessary  by  the  attacks  made  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.  They  did  not  mean  to 
add,  and  they  did  not  in  fact  add,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  to  the  faith  which  they  had  received ;  they 
simply  surrounded  it  with  such  safeguards  that 
no  one  could  deny  it  without  assailing  the  def- 
inite decisions  of  the  Church,  It  was  widely 
different  with  the  Vatican  decree.  It  was  not 
even  a  necessary  development  of  the  Roman 
theory  of  papal  supremacy;  while  that  doctrine 
in  its  turn  was  a  pure  invention,  having  no  ger- 
minal truth  corresponding  with  it  \vhich  was 
known  in  the  Church  in  the  Nicene  period  or 
even  a  century  later.  In  all  the  legitimate 
developments  of  Christian  doctrine,  so  far  as 
they   have   been   embodied    in   the   authorized 


I... 


THE   UmTY  OF  CURISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     1 27 

documents  of  the  Cliurch,  there  is  a  conspicuous 
unity;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  much  of 
the  teaching  which  has  been  commended  by 
the  orcater  minds  of  the  Ciiristian  Church,  but 
which  has  never  received  the  final  impress  of 
ecclesiastical  authority. 

II.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  draw  out  in 
detail  proofs  or  illustrations  of  these  statements. 
But  there  is  no  difficulty  in  giving  specimens  of 
the  unity  in  the  midst  of  variety  and  diversity 
by  which  Christian  teaching  has  been  distin- 
guished ;  and  these  samples  shall  be  selected 
from  those  teachings  which  have  been  adduced 
by  objectors  who  complained  of  the  want  of 
defuiitcness  and  harmony  in  the  utterances  of 
Christian  teachers.  Let  us  note  some  of  these 
allegations  as  they  regard  the  nature  and  char- 
acter of  God,  the  nature  and  future  destiny  of 
man. 

I.  With  regard  to  the  nature  of  God.  It  has 
been  alleged,  and  with  no  small  appearance 
of  truth,  that  representations  of  the  Almighty 
have  been  given  by  Christian  teachers  and  even 
by  Holy  Scripture  itself  which  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled, which  are  indeed  mutually  contradictory. 
For  example,  it  has  been  represented,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  the  Most  High  is  invested  wdth 
attributes  similar  to  those  possessed  by  men, 
or  even  identical  with  them,  even  to  the  very 
emotions  and  passions  which  belong  to  the 
weakest  and  most  variable  side  of  our  human 


:^ 


Is 


^•1 


'■  it 


1.  r« 


%^ 


\^:  t 


Ililli  '^ 


ji 

M    m 


u  ' 


M 


128 


IVITA' ESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


nature;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  He  has  been 
represented  as  One  who  is  hfted  high  above  all 
human  emotions  and  passions,  being  pure  Spirit, 
and  sometimes  as  mere  Negation.  Again,  there 
has  been  a  teaeliing,  either  purely  pantheistic  or 
partaking  of  a  pantheistic  tendency,  which  has 
spoken  of  the  Almighty  God  as  immanent  in 
the  universe,  as  pervading  all  existence  and 
forming  its  ground  and  support;  and  this  teach- 
ing has  drawn  its  proofs  from  Holy  Scripture. 
On  the  other  hand,  another  class  of  teachers, 
with  a  deistic  tendency,  have  represented  the 
Almighty  as  transcending  the  universe,  being 
distinct,  if  not  separate,  from  the  works  of  Mis 
hands ;  and  these  too  have  quoted  Scripture 
in  support  of  their  assertions.  To  the  one 
class  belong  Christian  teachers  of  the  school 
of  Schleiermacher  and  Coleridge  ;  to  the  other 
belong  the  deists  of  the  last  century,  the  influ- 
ence of  whom  is  perceptible  even  in  orthodox 
writers  like  Butler  and  Pajcy. 

It  might  seem  presumptuous,  and  even  in  a 
measure  supercilious,  for  any  one  to  assume  a 
position  of  mediation  between  schools  so  widely 
separated  as  those  which  have  been  mentioned ; 
and  if  the  mediation  were  merely  that  of  an  in- 
dividual, he  could  scarcely  defend  himself  from 
the  charge  of  arrogance.  When,  however,  we 
assert  our  belief  that  Almighty  God  has,  by 
means  of  these  diverse  and  conflicting  eftbrts, 
been  leading  His  Church  to  higher  and  wider 


It 


THE  UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     1 29 

and  deeper  views  of  His  own  nature,  we  may 
hope  not  only  to  escape  from  such  a  charfjc, 
but  to  gain  credence  from  those  wlio  consider 
that  it  is  in  this  way  that  larger  and  fuller  truth 
has  been  gained  on  every  subject  of  human  in- 
quiry. We  cannot  doubt  that  it  is  so,  and  that 
it  will  increasingly  be  found  to  be  so,  in  regard 
to  our  knowledge  of  the  Divine  nature  and 
relations  to  the  universe. 

"  Who  by  searching  can  find  out  God?  "  We 
feel  sure  tliat  God  is:  we  cannot  perfectly  tell 
ivhat  He  is.  When  we  say  lie  is  absolute,  infi- 
nite, eternal,  wc  are  simply  removing  llim  from 
the  sphere  of  human  definition.  To  define  is  to 
limit.  In  so  far,  we  must  all  confess  ourselves 
to  be,  in  a  sense,  Christian  agnostics.  Yet  wc 
do  feel  that  those  anthropomorphic  expressions 
concerning  the  Most  High,  which  are  found  in 
Holy  Scripture  and  in  our  popular  theology, 
do  contain  such  measure  of  truth  as  we  are  able, 
in  certain  stages  of  our  spiritual  development,  to 
receive  concerning  the  nature  and  will  of  God. 
And  further,  that  these  phrases  are  not  merely 
statements  upon  which  we  can  base  our  practi- 
cal action,  but  that  they  do  actually  represent 
truth  concerning  the  nature  of  God,  because  we 
believe  that  we  are  made  in  the  Divine  image. 
There  is  nothing  in  our  nature,  apart  from  itsj>-^ 
sinfulness,  which  has  not  its  archetype  in  God;;/ 
and  although  no  language  which  we  could 
understand  may  be  capable  of  telling  us  what 

9 


< 


I: 


■A 


ill 
\ 


f'       18 


,»A 


130 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST, 


God  is  in  Ilirnsclf,  yet  such  expressions  may 
bring  to  our  minds  such  true  knowledge  as  we 
arc  capable  of  receiving. 

Take,  again,  the  apparently  conflicting  repre- 
sentations of  the  deistic  and  pantheistic  teachers. 
If  these  statements  are  considered  as  negations, 
the  one  denying  the  immanence  and  the  other 
the  transcendence,  then,  of  course,  they  arc  con- 
tradictory and  irreconcilable.  If,  however,  the 
;  theologian  of  deistic  tendencies  merely  asserts 
■  that  God  is  not  contained  in  the  universe,  but 
transcends  it,  then  he  is  declaring  a  truth  which 
is  established  alike  by  Scripture  and  reason; 
!  and  if  the  theologian  of  pantheistic  tendencies 
'maintains  that  God  is  in  all  things  and  through 
all  things,  that  in  Him  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being,  then  he,  too,  is  declaring  a 
plain  truth  of  Scripture  which  is  acknowledged 
by  the  most  profound  and  the  most  spiritual 
philosophy.  So  far  are  these  two  truths  from 
being  contradictory  that  we  seem  now  to  be 
agreed  that  their  synthesis  brings  us  as  near  as 
we  can  come  to  a  true  view  of  the  relation  of 
the  Almighty  to  the  universe  which  lie  origi- 
nated and  which  lie  governs. 

2.    When  we  come  to  consider  what  may  be 

f^.  more  precisely  described  as  the  character  of 
"  God,  we  arc  confronted  by  a  strange  opposition 
between  different  representations  of  His  loving 
purposes  towards  mankind.  On  the  one  side 
we  have  the  various  Augustinian  and  Calvinistic 


nl 


THE   UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRFNE.     131 

schools,  with  their  doctrines  of  I'>lcction  and 
Reprobation  or  I'rctcrition ;  and  on  the  otlicr, 
the  school  of  Alexandria,  the  Pelagiin,  scmi- 
Pclac^ian,  and  Arniinian  scho  >ls,  which  cither 
know  nothing  of  such  predestination  or  are 
vehemently  opposed  to  the  Aii<;ustinian  doc- 
trine. Here  surely  is  discord  beyond  all  hope 
of  conciliation  or  harmony.  Statements  con- 
frontin<4  each  other  as  contraries  or  contradicto- 
ries cannot  logically  be  brought  into  agreement  ; 
and  here  it  might  seem  hopeless  to  establish  any 
unity  of  teaching. 

It  must,  indeed,  be  conceded  that,  if  we 
are  to  take  the  mere  utterances,  formal  conclu- 
sions, and  arguments  of  these  schools,  we  shall 
fail  to  discover  any  harmony  or  unity  in  their 
teaching.  13ut  this  will  not  be  the  case  if  we 
penetrate  beneath  the  surface,  and  la\'  hoKl  of 
the  fundamental  principles  for  which  these  op- 
posite schools  were  contending.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  a  self-evident 
fact.  On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no 
hurran  responsibility  apart  from  rational,  moral 
liberty.  In  whatever  degree  you  limit  a  man's  m 
liberty,  in  that  degree  you  limit  his  responsi-J^' 
bility.  These  two  sets  of  truths  are,  in  reality, 
self-evident.  If  we  cannot  reconcile  them  we 
must  leave  them  where  they  are,  for  we  can- 
not blot  them  out. 

Again,  the  Arminian  and   others  of  his  way 
of  thinking  may  contend  —  and  the  human  con- 


ll 


\: 


^il 


i?' 
H  ■ 


.* 


a 


•VVS-^*"  ' 


>f 


%. 


A 


132 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


V 

1 

•i 

H 

£< 

4 

J 

•4 

-,:) 

V, 

• 

^ 

\* 

i 

.1 

•-> 
•1 

^■"'^ 

■Nt 

t 

■*•. 

~  science  will  go  with  them  in  the  contention  — 
i  that  no  man  can  be  responsible  for  doing  what 
!  God  has  decided  and  decreed  that  he  shall  not 
j  do,  and  what  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  do 
'  unless  God  had  decreed  otherwise  ;  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Calvinist  may  rightly  urge,  that, 
when  this  constitution  of  Nature  was  framed  by 
the  Most  High,  He  must  have  had  some   plan 
or  purpose  concerning  it,  and  that  this  plan  must 
be  worked  out,  this  purpose  must  be  fulfilled. 
To  deny  this  would  be  to  attribute  to  the  all- 
wise  Creator  a  degree  of  providence  inferior  to 
that  which  we  must  ascribe  to  every  serious  and 
thoughtful  man.     And  yet,  who  can  deny  that 
such  a  belief  carries  with  it  difficulties  in  regard 
to  the  exercise  of  man's  liberty  ?     We   can  as- 
sert man's  liberty  as  a  fact  and  as  the  r>zds  of 
^'    his  responsibility,  and  we  shall  have  the  hiii:  -n 
2      conscience  on  our  side  when  we  make  the  as- 
sertion.    On  the  other  side,  we  are  quite  sure 
that    the    Divine    purpose    cannot    fail.     How 
these  two  sets  of  truths  can   be  brought  into 
accord  we  cannot  tell,  and  we  have  no  need  to 
make  any  such  attempt,  in  which  it  is  beyond 
our  powers  to  succeed.     But  we  may  sec  clearly 
enough   that  the  opposing  schools  of  theology, 
perhaps  rather  of  philosophy,  have  been  empha- 
,  sizing  and  exaggerating  truths  which  seem   to 
;  us  at  variance  simply  because  their  reconcilia- 
/  tion  is  beyond  our  power. 

3.    When   we   pass    from    the   study   of   the 


THE   UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     1 33 

nature  and  the  cliaractcr  of  the  Most  High  to 
the  constitution,  nature,  relations  of  His  creature 
man,  we  find  that  there  is  here  the  same  want 
of  harmony  between  those  two  schools  that  was 
shown  in  regard  to  the  higher  subject.  When 
we  mention  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  the 
numerous  differences  of  teaching  in  regard  to 
man's  state  and  character  by  nature  will  occur 
to  us  at  once  ;  and  perhaps  we  shall  be  ready 
to  conclude  that  here  we  have  a  chaos  of  doc- 
trines in  which  it  will  be  impossible  to  find  any 
principle  of  unity.  For  example,  some  hold 
that  the  Divine  image  and  likeness  is  entirely 
lost  in  man  ;  others,  that  it  is  only  partiallyTosT  ; 
others,  that  the  likeness  is  lost,  but  not  the  image.  \ 
Some  hold  that  man  is  totally  depraved  ;  others, 
that  he  is  fallen,  but  not  totally  depraved.  Some 
hold  that  man,  without  the  aid  of  divine  grace, 
cjn  do  the  will  of  God  ;  others,  that  he  is 
totally  unable  to  do  any  good  thing  without 
help  from  above;  while  a  great  many  shades  of 
opinion  may  be  discerned  among  these  leading 
differences. 

We  are  not  concerned  to  defend  the  vagaries 
of  individual  teachers,  so  long  as  we  can  show 
that  the  Church  at  large  has  not  committed  her- 
self to  any  extreme  views  on  this  subject.  lUit 
we  believe  that  a  careful  examination  even  of  the 
extreme  theories  which  have  been  enunciated 
on  the  subject  of  human  depravity  will  satisfy 
us  that  some  portion  of  the  difference  may  be 


X 


I'. 
» 


v-n' 


n 


I 


134 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


removed  by  a  more   careful   definition  of  the 
terms  employed,  and  still  more  by  taking  into 
.account  the  different  points  of  view  of  the  con- 
I  flicting  theories. 

For  example,  the  very  nature  of  original  sin 
is  differently  defined,  —  the  Church  of  Rome  re- 
garding it  as  merely  negative,  the  loss  of  the 
supernatural  gift,  wherein,  according  to  their 
view,  the  original  righteousness  of  our  first 
parents  consisted  ;  while  some  other  Christian 
communions  regard  original  sin  as  something 
positiv^e.  Similarly,  there  is  a  difference  of  defi- 
nition respecting  that  natural  affection  which  the 
English  Article^  calls  the  (^povqixa  a-apKo^,  or 
»  concupiscence  ;  the  Article  declaring  that  it  has 
j  the  nature  of  sin,  while  the  Roman  Church  de- 
i  clares  that  it  has  not  the  nature  of  sin.  Some, 
again,  declare  that  children  come  into  the  world 
sinful,  while  others  assert  that  they  are  pure 
and  clean. 

There  are  very  few  subjects,  indeed,  on  which 
there  seems  to  be  a  more  hopeless  diversity 
of  sentiment  and  judgment ;  and  yet  there  are 
very  few  on  which  there  is  a  more  remarkable 
fundamental  agreement.  Let  us  note  some  in- 
dications of  this  unity. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  agreed  that  the 
state  of  nature  is  not  normally  a  state  of  grace; 
and  that,  although  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we 
may  say  that  a  man  can  do  all  that  he  is  bound 

1  Article  IX.,  "  Of  Original  or  Birth  Sin." 


»<■(. 


THE   UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     1 35 

to  do,  as  the  Pelagians  said,  there  is  equally  a 
height  to  which  he  can  aspire,  and  to  which  he 
is  bound  to  aspire  when  he  knows  of  it,  which 
he  can  by  no  means  attain  without  the  aid  of 
Divine  grace,  as  the  Augustinians  declared. 
Again,  it  will  be  conceded  by  most  Christians 
that  there  can  be  no  sin,  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word,  where  there  is  no  conscious  trans- 
gression of  law ;  yet  the  nature  which  we  inherit 
from  our  parents  is  not  the  pure  nature  which 
came  from  the  hand  of  God,  and  moreover  we 
are  actually  made  subject  to  the  penalties  of 
sins  committed  by  our  ancestors  before  we  had 
any  being.  The  child  which  dies  of  a  disease 
resulting  from  the  sin  of  another  is,  in  no  proper 
sense  of  the  words,  guilty  of  that  sin,  or  pun- 
ished for  that  sin ;  but  yet  it  does  bear  the 
penalty  which  is  its  consequence.  It  is  very 
curious  to  note  how,  in  recent  years,  science 
has  come  to  the  aid  of  theology  against  a  shal- 
low view  of  the  nature  of  man.  It  is  not  many 
years  since  an  English  statesman  declared  that 
all  children  came  into  the  world  with  a  soul  like 
a  sheet  of  clean  paper.  It  may  be  conceded 
that  a  certain  school  of  theologians  had  used 
unjustifiable  language  when  they  spoke  of  the 
guilt  of  little  children :  there  can  be  no  personal 
guilt  where  there  is  no  personal  offence.  But  it 
is  satisfactorily  established  by  the  research  of  the 
scientific  students  of  man's  nature,  that,  instead 
of  coming  into  the  world  pure  and  clean,  as  some 


-■l^ 


136 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


i: 


have  asserted,  we  do  indeed  come  with  tendencies 
to  all  kinds  of  conduct  inherited  from  the  char- 
acter and  constitution  of  our  forefathers.  There 
are  few  things  more  remarkable  than  the  way  in 
which  thinkers  of  all  schools  are  coming  to  an 
agreement  on  this  subject.  Strip  the  utterances 
of  the  contending  theologians  of  their  techni- 
calities and  their  exaggerations,  compel  them  to 
agree  on  definitions,  to  use  their  terms  in  the 
same  sense,  or  at  least  to  understand  the  sense 
in  which  they  are  used  by  their  antagonists,  and 
their  differences  will  be  seen  to  be  so  utterly 
unimportant  that  we  may  safely  say  that  there 
is  substantial  unity  in  their  teaching.^ 

4.  It  may  seem  to  some  surprising  that  we 
should  seek  for  another  illustration  of  this  unity 
of  doctrine  in  the  Christian  teaching  on  the 
subject  of  Eschatology,  the  doctrine  of  the  "  last 
things,"  or  of  future  retribution.  This  is  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  burning  questions  of  the  pres- 
ent day;  and  although  it  is  now,  in  a  great 
degree,  burnt  out,  most  persons  will  perhaps 
hesitate  to  say  that  the  different  opinions  pre- 
vailing in  the  Church  can  be  harmonized  or  re- 
duced to  a  unity.  Let  us  endeavor  to  ascertain 
whether  this  can  be  done,  although  our  remarks 
will  necessarily  be  too  much  condensed. 

On  the  subject  of  future  retribution  three 
theories    have    been,    more   or   less,    prevalent 

1  See  Dr.  Bigg's  "  Christian  Platonists,"  pp.80,  81,  202,  286. 
Compare  also  I'oujoulat,  "Saint  Augustin." 


THE   UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     1 37 

throughout  the  whole  history  of  the  Church: 
first,  that  which  may  be  called  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  although  it  has  been  held  and  taught  in 
various  forms,  —  namely,  the  doctrine  of  everlast- 
ing punishment ;  secondly,  the  doctrine  known 
as  Universalism,  according  to  which  all  men 
shall  be  finally  saved,  —  a  doctrine  which  has 
been  taught  with  a  great  many  degrees  of  clear- 
ness and  obscurity;  thirdly,  the  doctrine  of 
annihilation,  according  to  which  the  finally  im- 
penitent will,  at  some  future  time,  cease  to  exist, 
—  a  doctrine  which,  in  early  teaching,  so  far  as 
we  know,  was  sustained  only  by  the  somewhat 
obscure  name  of  Arnobius,^  but  which,  under 
the  name  of  Conditional  Immortality,  has  ob- 
tained considerable  acceptance  during  the  past 
twenty  or  thirty  years. 

From  the  time  of  the  Schoolmen  down  to  the 
present  century,  not  only  has  the  doctrine  of 
everlasting  retribution  been  taught,  but  it  has 
been  taught  in  its  coarsest  and  most  repulsive 
form.  The  imagery  employed  by  the  great 
Italian  poet  in  his  "  Inferno,"  is  hardly  an  exag- 
geration of  the  popular  teaching  respecting  the 
sufferings  of  the  lost.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  the  doctrine,  in  this  form  at  least,  has  been 
almost  abandoned.     Yet  it  can  hardly  be  said 


^  Dr.  Puscy  ("Everlasting  Punishment,"  p.  195)  says  tiie 
opinion  of  Arnol)ius  "is  obscure,  but  of  no  moment."  There 
seems,  however,  to  be  no  doubt  that  he  taught  annihilation.  See 
his  worii  "Advcrsus  Gcntes,"  bouk  ii.  chap.  31,  61. 


I;' 


I'  i| 


iky 


I        i'i 


138 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


that  cither  of  the  other  theories  has  taken  its 
place.  UniversaHsin,  although  it  may  claim  to 
be  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  much  of  the 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament  regarding  the 
future  triumphs  of  Christ,  and  the  subjection  of 
all  things  to  him,  does  yet  seem  so  greatly  at 
variance  with  some  distinct  teachings  in  the 
Gospels  and  in  the  Epistles,  that  it  is  not  held 
by  many  who  acknowledge  cither  the  supreme 
authority  f  '  -criptures  or  the  consentient 
testimony  01  C   lUrch.     The  theory  of  con- 

ditional immortality,  according  to  which  the 
finally  impcu  ^.nt  will  bo  utterly  destroyed  and 
will  cease  to  exist,  has  c.  it:ii:ly  no  clear  author- 
ity in  the  Scriptures,  the  passages  to  which 
appeal  is  made  being,  at  least,  equivocal  and 
uncertain  in  their  meaning;  besides  which  it 
savors  so  strongly  of  materialism,  that  it  is  not 
easily  entertained  by  those  who  hold  the  spirit- 
ual nature  of  the  human  soul.  It  has  been 
thought,  however,  —  and  the  notion  has  a  large 
amount  of  probability  on  its  side,  —  that  the 
common  doctrine  of  the  Church^  supplies  the 
elements  of  truth  which  are  contained  in  these 
various  theories  of  future  punishment. 

In  the  first  place,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  general  teaching  of  the  Church  has  been  in 
favor  of  the  everlasting  duration  of  the  punish- 
ment of  the  finally  impenitent.  But  then  the  na- 
ture of  the  punishment  has  never  been  closely 

1  See  Note  E. 


THE   UAVTY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     139 


1^ 


''fe 


defined.  It  might  be  either  of  the  nature  of 
actual  suffering  {\.\\q  poena  soisiis),  or  it  miglit  be 
niere  privation  or  loss  (the /av/f^  dcunni),  without 
denying  that  actual  suffering  might  endure  for  a 
season.  If  this  last  theory  be  received,  as  it  is 
now  by  many  thoughtful  Christians,  wc  have  a 
doctrine  which  in  a  great  measure  reconciles 
the  various  theories.  We  have  a  species  of 
Universalism,  for  actual  suffering  will  in  time 
come  to  an  end;  we  have  a  kind  of  annihila- 
tion, for  those  capacities  will  be  destroyed  by 
which  men  might  rise  to  the  highest  privileges 
of  the  heavenly  life ;  and  there  is  also  a  very 
real  kind  of  everlasting  punishment  in  being 
deprived  of  the  best  blessings  of  eternity,  es- 
pecially in  being  forever  excluded  from  the 
beatific  vision. 

It  would  appear  —  it  is  at  least  the  judgment 
of  the  latest  writer  on  the  subject  —  that  some- 
thing like  this  was  the  opinion  of  Origen.^  Dr. 
Bigg,  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  "  Chris- 
tian Platonists  of  Alexandria,"  thus  interprets 
the  teaching  of  Origen :  "  To  the  Beatific  Vision 
none  can  be  admitted  save  the  pure  in  heart. 
Though  all  other  chastisements  cease  when 
their  object  is  fulfilled,  the  pana  damni  may 
still  endure.  Star  diftcreth  from  star  in  glory. 
There  are  many  mansions,  many  degrees.    There 

1  The  writer  has  for  several  years  held  this  view;  but  it 
was  only  in  Dr.  Bigg's  work  that  he  saw  it  advanced  as  the 
doctrine  of  Origen. 


140 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


arc  those  who  bring  forth  thirty,  sixty,  a  hun- 
dredfold.     *  The    rifjhteous  shall  shine  as   the 
sun.     And    upon    whom    shall    they  shine   but 
*(  on   those   beneath  them?'     If  we  do  not  mis- 
\  interpret    these    expressions,    they    appear    to 
,  mean  that  the  soul  by  sin  may  lose  capacities 
;  which   can   never  be  wholly  regained ;    and   in 
this  sense,  at  least,  Origen  teaches  the  eternity 
of  punishment." 

We  arc  not  concerned  to  prove  that  men  have 
made  no  mistakes  in  their  interpretation  of  the 
Word  of  God ;  nor  is  any  such  theory  needed 
to  be  maintained  in  order  to  vindicate  the  truth 
and  certainty  of  Scripture  doctrine,  any  more 
than  it  is  necessary  to  prove  that  no  mistakes 
have  been  made  in  science  before  we  can  be- 
lieve in  the  uniformity  of  the  laws  of  Nature. 
In  truth,  the  analogy  between  these  two  books 
of  God  is  very  close  and  striking.  The  book  of 
Nature  lies  open  before  us,  and  we  are  learning, 
from  age  to  age,  to  know  more  of  its  secrets  and 
to  bring  its  disclosures  into  a  more  perfect  har- 
mony. So  it  is  with  the  book  of  grace,  —  the 
supernatural  revelation  which  God  has  afforded 
to  mankind,  more  especially  in  the  person  and 
work  of  His  Incarnate  Son,  and  which  He  has 
caused  to  be  written  for  our  learning  in  Holy 
Scripture. 

That  sacred  volume  has  lain  open  before  us 
for  many  ages,  and  men  have  come  with  differ- 
ent capacities  and  with  various  degrees  of  pre- 


M': 


THE  UNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     141 


paredness  to  draw  truth  from  its  pages.  Many- 
glorious  rays  of  light  have,  through  their  labors, 
been  made  to  shine  upon  the  darkness  of  our 
humanity.  Some  of  its  rays  have  been  dark- 
ened, discolored,  perverted  by  man's  ignorance 
or  aversion  to  the  truth.  But  the  process  of 
enlightenment  has  gone  on,  although  not  always 
without  stay  or  interruption.  Dark  ages  have 
again  and  again  interrupted  the  shining  light, 
yet  again  the  darkness  has  passed  away  and  the 
true  light  has  shone,  and  ever  its  beams  have 
grown  brighter  and  brighter;  and  so  by  God's 
mercy  it  shall  be,  until  the  day  break  and  the 
shadows  flee  away,  when  the  night  of  ignorance 
and  error  and  partial  truth  shall  have  passed  for- 
ever, and  in  the  beatific  vision  of  Him  who  is 
Eternal  Truth  we  behold  the  perfect  day. 


f^ 


c«C 


h^ 


,A-   j5#-^^    /■<»*•.  ft t/^. 


LECTURE    V. 

THE    INSUFFICIENCY   OF    MATERIALISM. 

Universality  of  Belief  in  God.  —  Materialism  and  Atheism 
inseparably  connected.  —  Materialism,  what  it  is.  —  Mate- 
rialistic Accounts  of  the  Origin  of  Life.  —  Evolution  not 
necessarily  materialistic. — The  Atomic  Theory  no  E.xpla- 
nation  of  Life.  —  Materialism,  jnire  and  simple,  gener- 
ally abandoned. —  Opinions  of  eminent  Scientific  Men. — 
The  Principle  of  Energy  or  Force.  —  Mr.  Spencer's  Expo- 
sition. —  Must  we  not  go  further.'  Mr.  Spencer,  to  some 
E.\tent,  in  Agreement  with  the  Gospel,  —  but  in  his  "  Force  " 
we  recognize  Mind.  —  We  arc  compelled  to  go  beyond  the 
Facts  and  Laws  of  the  Material  Universe.  —  We  know  Mind 
directly,  Matter  indirectly.  —  What  do  we  learn  from  the 
External  World  .'  —  Kant's  Categories.  —  Laws  of  Nature 
imply  Mind.  —  The  Argument  from  Design,  —  Objections 
considered.  —  What  we  believe  and  assert.  —  Our  Conclu- 
sions called  in  Question.  —  Spirit  personal.  —  The  Ego  and 
Non-l'",go.  —  The  Analogy  of  the  Finite  inapplicable  to  the 
Infinite.  —  Conclusions. 


1  \M 


I  HAD  rather,"  says  Lord  Bacon,^  "  believe 
all  the  fables  in  the  Legend  and  the  Tal- 
mud and  the  Alcoran,  than  that  this  universal 
frame  is  without  a  mind."  And  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  these  words  represent  a  sentiment 
which  is  well-nigh  universal.  "  It  appeareth  in 
nothing  more,"  says  the  same  great  writer,  "  that 
atheism  is  rather  in  the  lip  than  in  the  heart  of 

1  Essay  XVI. 


THE  INSUFFICIEXCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     143 

man,  than  by  this,  that  atheists  will  ever  be  talk- 
ing of  that  their  opinion,  as  if  they  fainted  in  it 
themselves,  and  would  be  glad  to  be  strength- 
ened by  the  consent  of  others."  "  What  people 
is  there,  or  what  race  of  men,"  asks  Cicero,' 
"  which  has  not,  even  without  traditional  teach- 
ing, some  notion  of  the  existence  of  Gods?" 
The  idea  seems  to  be  ineradicable.  In  hours  of 
danger  men  who  have  professed  unbelief  have 
been  heard  to  call  upon  the  Mightiest  for  help. 

It  is  well  that  it  should  at  once  be  understood 
that  the  subject  which  we  have  now  in  hand, 
Materialism,  is  inseparably  connected  with  an- 
other which  is  often  kept  out  of  sight,  Atheism. 
If  there  is  nothing  but  matter,  then  there  is  no 
God ;  if  we  can  know  nothing  but  matter,  then 
we  can  know  nothing  of  God.  We  have  al- 
ready attempted  to  show  the  insufficiency  of 
atheism,  and  therefore  of  materialism,  in  the 
life  and  training  of  the  soul  of  man.  We  are 
now  prepared  to  go  further,  and  maintain  that 
it  is  insufficient  as  a  theory  of  the  universe. 
Whether  we  regard  the  subject  practically  or 
theoretically,  we  are  unable,  and  we  believe 
that  mankind  will  ultimately  be  unable,  to  rest 
in  materialism. 

It  is  not  quite  easy  to  say  in  a  few  words 
what  is  precisely  meant  by  materialism,  because, 
as  we  shall  see,  it  has  assumed  different  shapes 
in  different  hands,  —  some  considering  that  mat- 

1  De  Natura  Deorum,  i.  16. 


144 


WITNESSES  TO  C/IK/ST. 


j 


ter  by  itself  is  sufTicicnt  to  account  for  all  the 
phcnoniciKi  (;f  life,  and  others  postulating  a  prin- 
ciple which  is  called  Force,  or  luiergy,  in  addi- 
tion to  matter.  We  may  say  generally,  however, 
that  materialism  has  this  one  characteristic.  — 
ithat  it  denies  the  existence  of  mind  as  distinct 
jfrom  matter.  It  asserts  that  thought  is  a  pro- 
duct of  highly  organized  matter,  and  denies  that 
matter  and  its  organization  are  the  work  of  mind. 
It  maintains  that  consciousness  and  personality 
are  not  primary  facts  of  existence,  but  the  out- 
come of  the  interaction  and  composition  of  the 
elementary  particles  of  matter. 

There  are  various  theories  with  regard  to  the 
original  form  of  matter,  —  some  holding  what  is 
known  as  the  atomic  theory,  in  one  of  its  vari- 
ous forms  ;  others  holding  that  the  primary  sub- 
stance is  a  fluid  which  fills  all  space.  Neither  of 
these  theories  pretends  to  be  more  than  a  mere 
hypothesis,  and  therefore  they  may  be  safely 
disregarded  in  our  argument.  It  is  of  more  im- 
portance to  consider  what  account  is  given  of 
the  organization  of  matter;  for  it  is  agreed  that 
matter  was  once  inorganic,  and  that  at  some 
time  and  in  some  way  organization  took  place, 
and  life  began. 

In  this  respect  all  purely  materialistic  sys- 
tems involve  the  theories  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion and  evolution,  although  these  theories  are 
not  necessarily  connected.  To  take  one  exam- 
ple, Dr.  Strauss,  in  his  work,  already  quoted,  on 


THE  IXSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 45 


**  The  Old  Faith  and  the  New,"  considers  tliat, 
at  a  certain  moment  in  the  past,  the  cell  was 
spontaneously  generated,  and  so  the  inorganic 
became  the  organic,  and  in  due  time  life  ap- 
peared. It  is  obvious  that  we  are  here  coming 
into  contact  with  the  scientific  theory  of  evolu- 
tion, and  it  is  necessary  that  something  should 
be  said  on  this  subject,  liriefly  we  may  remark, 
first,  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  evolution 
maybe  accepted  by  a  Christian  theologian  ;  and, 
secondly,  that  the  great  teacher  of  evolution, 
the  late  Mr.  Darwin,  never  pretended  that  the 
theory  accounted  for  life  and  all  existence.  lie' 
did  not  deny  a  creative  beginning,  —  in  other 
words,  a  God;  in  the  later  editions  of  his  book 
on  Species,  he  refers  to  a  Creator;  and  so  far 
Christians  and  theists  have  no  argument  with 
him.^  As  regards  the  principles  of  natural  se- 
lection and  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  many 
Christians  seem  to  find  no  difficulty  in  admitting 
a  large  amount  of  truth  in  them.  For  our  pres- 
ent purpose,  however,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark 
that  a  thorough-going  materialist  can  find  no 
help  from  Mr.  Darwin,  and  that  the  advocates 
of  mind  and  those  who  teach  the  existence  of 
a  God  need  have  no  controversy  with  him. 
Dr.  Huxley,  too,  while  pointing  out  that,  if 
evolution,  in  the  whole  meaning  of  the  word,^ 
be  true,  "  living  matter  must  have  arisen  from 
non-living  matter,"  yet  admits  that  there  is  no 

1  See  Note  F. 
10 


% 


■■  tj 


i 


146 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


II 


K  li; 


:| 


proof  of  this.  "  There  is  not,"  he  says,^  **  a 
shadow  of  trustworthy,  direct  evidence  that 
abiogenesis  docs  take  place  within  the  period 
during  which  the  existence  of  Hfe  on  the  globe 
is  recorded."  Let  us,  then,  endeavor  to  under- 
stand the  materialistic  solution  of  the  problem 
of  existence,  and  see  whether  it  will  satisfy,  not 
merely  the  heart  and  the  conscience,  but  even 
the  demands  of  the  intelligence. 

One  of  the  oldest  expositions  of  materialism, 
pure  and  simple,  is  that  which  is  known  as  the 
ancient  atomic  theory.  There  are  many  points 
in  this  theory,  as  originally  taught,  which  are 
open  to  criticism.  For  example,  the  assertion 
that  the  atoms  differed  in  size,  form,  and  weight, 
was  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  notion  of 
their  indivisibility  and  ultimate  elementary  char- 
acter. As  an  eminent  modern  man  of  science 
has  said,^  such  atoms  were  evidently  "  manufac- 
tured articles." 

But  it  is  not  here,  principally,  that  this  theory, 
and  every  other  theory  which  knows  not  of  any- 
thing apart  from  matter,  breaks  down  hopelessly 
as  an  explanation  of  the  origin  and  formation 
of  the  universe  as  we  know  it.  Suppose  we 
grant  or  postulate  these  atoms  as  the  primary 
forms  of  matter,  or  the  fluid  basis  which  others 
prefer,  how  far  have  we  advanced  on  the  road 
of  explaining   the   existence  of  living  beings? 

1  Art.  "  IJiolog\%"  in  Encyclopicdia  Britannica. 

2  Professor  Clerk  Maxwell. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM     147 


Suppose  we  grant  the  Plenum  of  the  atoms, 
and  the  Vacuum,  or  Void  of  Space,  in  what  way 
are  these  atoms  set  to  work  so  as  to  form  tlie 
combinations  of  inorganic  matter,  and  then  how 
does  this  inorganic  pass  into  the  organic? 

It  is  unnecessary  to  give  here  in  detail  the  an- 
swer of  the  atornists  to  this  question,  —  the  an- 
swer, for  example,  of  Democritus,  that  the  atoms 
fall  downwards  according  to  their  gravity,  and 
unite  according  to  their  homogeneity,  or  like- 
ness in  form  and  weight,  and  are  guided  by 
the  principle  of  Necessity  (dva-yKif).  What  is 
the  meaning  of  "  up  "  and  "  down  "  in  such  cir- 
cumstances? Such  ideas  can  clearly  have  no 
place  until  Cosmos  has  emerged  from  Chaos. 
And  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  Necessity  which 
guides  them?  The  idea  of  necessity  is  insep- 
arable from  that  of  law;  and  law,  as  we  shall 
see,  implies  mind,  which  is  utterly  excluded  by 
this  theory.  In  short,  as  has  often  been  pointed 
out,  the  Necessity  of  the  atomists  is  mere  Chance 
(rv-^r)')  ;  and  this  explains  nothing.  Similar  ob- 
jections may  fairly  be  urged  against  any  other 
system  of  materialism,  pure  and  simple;  and  in 
consequence,  it  now  finds  few,  if  any,  supporters. 

Th.'s  point  deserves  to  be  dwelt  upon  and  em- 
phasized. It  is  lightly  assumed  by  man\',  who 
have  not  taken  the  pains  to  acquaint  themselves 
with  the  state  of  these  controversies,  that  mate- 
rialism is  a  theory  which  has  a  good  deal  to  say 
for  itself,  which  may  be  true  or  may  be  false, 


% 


i 

if 
r 


148 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


A  W, . 


Ifff 


but  which  at  any  rate  demands  and  deserves 
consideration,  which  is  opposed  chiefly,  if  not 
entirely,  by  theologians  and  by  those  who  have 
a  prejudice  in  favor  of  religion  on  the  one  side, 
or  metaphysics  on  the  other. 

This  assumption  is,  indeed,  very  wide  of  the 
truth.  Lotze  is  hardly  guilty  of  exaggeration 
when  he  says :  ^  "  The  assumption  that  the  com- 
mon substance  of  the  world  is  only  matter,  and 
matter  endowed  with  those  properties  which  we 
in  physical  science  attribute  to  every  portion  of 
the  same,  has  probably  never  been  made  in  ear- 
nest by  any  one.  Such  an  assumption  would 
take  upon  itself  the  difficult  problem  of  showing 
how,  from  these  mere  properties  of  space-filling, 
inertia,  divisibility,  and  mobility,  all  the  rest  of 
the  world,  and  therefore  even  its  spiritual  con- 
stituents, could  be  developed  as  a  matter  of 
course, — that  is  to  say,  as  the  mere  conse- 
quences of  such  properties,  and  without  admix- 
ture of  any  other  principle  whatever." 

If  it  should  be  said  that  the  old  atomists  had 
the  courage  to  make  this  incredible  assertion,  a 
slight  consideration  will  show  that  such  a  state- 
ment would  be  incorrect.  Even  Democritus 
needed  the  principle  of  Necessity  to  account  for 
the  movements  of  the  atoms ;  and  modern  pos- 
itivists  find  it  necessary  to  postulate  a  very  re- 
markable principle,  to  the  nature  of  which  we 
shall   presently  draw  attention.      In   the  mean 

1  Philosophy  of  Religion,  chap.  ii.  §  22. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM. 


149 


time  let  us  remind  our  opponents  that  the  most 
eminent  men  in  the  ranks  of  science  are  very- 
far  from  giving  their  sanction  to  the  materiahs- 
tic  atheism  which  now  boasts  so  loudly  of  its 
progress.^ 

On  this  point  we  will  not  quote  the  great 
names  of  many  who  have  been  sincere  Chris- 
tians as  well  as  ardent  students  of  Nature,  from 
Newton  downwards ;  we  can  refer  to  men  like 
Dr.  Huxley  and  Dr.  Tyndall,  even  to  Mr.  Mill, 
whose  atheistic  belief  was  very  much  shaken 
in  his  later  days.  Thus,  Dr.  Huxley  '^  remarks  : 
"  The  materialistic  position  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  world  but  matter,  force,  and  necessity,  is 
as  utterly  devoid  of  justification  as  the  most 
baseless  of  theological  dogmas."  When  Dr. 
Tyndall  was  president  of  the  British  Association, 
he  was  charged  with  having  taught  atheism  in 
his  inaugural  address  at  Belfast.  In  the  preface 
to  a  later  edition  of  his  address  he  gave  this  an- 
swer to  the  charge :  "  I  have  noticed,  during 
years  of  self-observation,  that  it  is  not  in  hours 
of  clearness  and  vigor  that  this  doctrine  [ma- 
terial atheism]  commends  itself  to  my  mind ; 
that  in  the  hours  of  stronger  and  healthier 
thought  it  ever  dissolves  and  disappears,  as 
offering  no  solution  of  the  mystery  in  which 
we  dwell."  "^     Still   stronger  are  his  words  in   a 

1  See  Mr,  Cotter  Morison's  "  Service  of  Man." 

2  Lay  Sermons,  p.  144. 

3  Belfast  Address,  Preface  to  the  fifth  thousand,  p.  36. 


150 


]V/T.VESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


subsequent  lecture  delivered  at  Manchester, 
and  published  along  with  the  Belfast  Address : 
"  When  standing  in  the  spring-time  and  looking 
upon  the  sprouting  foliage,  the  lilies  of  the  field, 
and  sharing  the  general  joy  of  opening  life,  I 
have  often  asked  myself  whether  there  is  no 
power,  being,  or  thing  in  the  universe,  whose 
knowledge  of  that  of  which  I  am  so  ignorant  is 
greater  than  mine.  I  have  asked  myself.  Can 
it  be  possible  that  man's  knowledge  is  the 
greatest  knowledge,  that  man's  life  is  the  high- 
est life?  My  friends,  the  profession  of  that 
atheism  with  which  I  am  sometimes  so  lightly 
charged  would,  in  my  case,  be  an  impossible 
answer  to  the  question ;  only  slightly  preferable 
to  that  fierce  and  distorted  theism  which  I  have 
lately  had  reason  to  know  still  reigns  rampant 
in  some  minds,  as  the  survival  of  a  more  fero- 


cious age. 


In  opposition  to  this  disavowal  of  atheism 
on  the  part  of  Professor  Tyndall,  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  in  the  Belfast  Address  he  quotes 
with  approval  the  words  of  Lucretius :  "  Nature 
is  seen  to  do  all  things  spontaneously  of  herself 
without  the  meddling  of  the  Gods."  But  it  is 
quite  clear  that  such  approval,  on  his  part,  was 
;aot  intended  to  teach  atheism,  although  it  is 
very  likely  that  Dr.  Tyndall  holds  opinions  on 
the  subject  of  the  providence  of  God  which  are 
not  consistent  with  the  teaching  of  Christianity. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  may  mean  no  more  than 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM     151 

a  protest  against  that  view  of  the  Divine  govern- 
ment which  represents  the  Deity  as  perpetually 
interfering  in  an  arbitrary  manner  with  tiie  nor- 
mal action  of  cause  and  effect  in  Nature  and  in 
history.  It  is  not  for  such  a  God  that  we  con- 
tend. \Vc  also  beheve  in  a  uniformity  of  Na- 
ture. We  beheve  in  a  God  who  governs  by 
law  and  not  by  caprice,  although  we  should 
probably  differ  from  some  men  of  science  as  to 
the  precise  sphere  of  law.  With  such  differ- 
ences, however,  at  present  wc  have  nothing  to 
do.  Our  controversy  is  with  materialism ;  our 
aim  is  to  show  its  insufficiency;  and  so  far 
we  have  seen  that  mere  materialism  has  no  ad- 
vocates among  men  of  science.  One  other 
quotation  may  be  offered  from  a  writer  as  dis- 
tinguished in  literature  as  arc  those  previously 
named  in  science.  Mr.  J.  A.  Symonds,  refer- 
ring more  particularly  to  the  science  of  evolu- 
tion, remarks :  ^  "  Science  has  not  eliminated 
the  conception  of  a  Deity,  or  effaced  the  noble 
humanities  secured  for  us  by  many  centuries  of 
Christian  faith.  It  cannot  be  too  emi)haticallv  1 
insisted  on  that  much-dreaded  Darwinism  leaves  '. 
the  theological  belief  in  a  divine  spirit  untouched.  I 
GbH" is  not  less  God,  nor  is  creative  energy  less 
creative,  because  we  are  led  to  suppose  that  a 
lengthy  instead  of  a  sudden  method  was  em- 
ployed in  the  production  of  the  Kosmos."  It 
is  hardly  needful   to  say  that   these  utterances 

^  Fortnightly  Review,  June,  1887. 


■1 


m 


152 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


:\      m 


\ .  % 


li  MH  if 


ii"!  II 


arc  not  here  adduced  as  being  authoritative,  but 
only  as  reasons  for  hesitating  to  accept  the 
authoritative  statements  of  a  boastful  science 
which  disdains  to  entertain  the  thought  of 
spirit  or  God. 

Still,  it  may  be  said  that  men  of  science  have 
professed  to  explain  the  phenomena  of  existence, 
and  to  account  for  the  changes  and  modifica- 
tions in  matter,  apart  from  the  action  of  a  per- 
sonal intelligence ;  and  this  they  have  done  by 
means  of  the  principle  which  is  known  under 
the  name  of  Energy,  or  Force.  These  terms 
have  been  distinguished;  but  for  our  present 
purpose  this  is  unnecessary. 

Among  those  who  seek  for  an  explanation  of 
the  universe  in  matter  and  force,  a  prominent 
place,  perhaps  the  foremost,  is  held  by  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer ;  and  it  is  to  his  writings  that 
we  must  turn  for  an  exposition  of  the  theory. 
Mr.  Spencer  says  quite  truly  that  "  we  cannot 
think  at  all  about  the  impressions  which  the 
external  world  produces  on  us,  without  think- 
ing of  them  as  caused ;  and  we  cannot  carry 
out  an  inquiry  concerning  their  causation,  with- 
out inevitably  committing  ourselves  to  the  hy- 
pothesis of  a  First  Cause."  ^  This  first  cause, 
he  says,  must  be  finite  or  infinite.  It  cannot  be 
finite ;  but  if  it  is  infinite,  '*  we  tacitly  abandon 
the  hypothesis  of  causation  altogether."  This 
statement  we  will  presently  consider.     Finally, 

'  First  Principles,  chap.  ii. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 53 

he  decides,  on  grounds  which  we  fully  admit, 
that  the  First  Cause  must  be  infinite  and  ab- 
solute. **  These  inferences,"  he  says  trul}-^,  "are 
forced  upon  us  by  arguments  from  which  there 
appears  no  escape."  ^ 

Mr.  Spencer  then  proceeds  to  show  that  all 
religious  systems  recognize  more  or  less  clearly 
"  the  omnipresence  of  something  which  passes 
comprehension ;  "  and  so  he  concludes  that  the 
"  Power  which  the  universe  manifests  to  us  is 
utterly  inscrutable."  ^  Passing  on  to  details,  he 
shows  that  "  Matter,  in  its  ultimate  nature,  is 
as  absolutely  incomprehensible  as  Space  and 
Time.^  .  .  .  Matter  is  known  to  us  only  through 
its  manifestations  of  Force;"  and  further,  "it 
is  impossible  to  form  any  idea  of  Force  in 
itself,"  and  "  it  is  equally  impossible  to  com- 
prehend its  mode  of  exercise."  Repeating  the 
conclusions  at  which  he  has  arrived,  he  re- 
marks: ^  "Though  the  Absolute  cannot  in  any 
manner  or  degree  be  known,  in  the  strict  sense 
of  knowing,  yet  we  find  that  its  positive  exist- 
ence is  a  necessary  datum  of  consciousness; 
that  so  long  as  consciousness  continues,  we  can- 
not for  an  instant  rid  it  of  this  datum;  and  that 
thus  the  belief  which  this  datum  constitutes,  has 
a  higher  warrant  than  any  other  whatever." 

To  this   extent   Mr.   Spencer  recognizes  the 
value  of  religion,  that  "  amidst  its  many  errors 


1  First  Principles,  chap.  ii. 

2  Ibid,,  chap.  iii. 


*  Ibid.,  chap.  v. 


i 


'  s 


■  i 


154 


IVITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


and  corruptions  it  has  asserted  and  diffused  a 
supreme  verity,"  —  namely,  the  existence  of  a 
"  Reahty  utterly  inscrutable  in  nature."  So  far 
we  might  argue  that  Mr.  Spencer  is  entirely  on 
our  side,  at  least  so  far  as  the  negation  of  mere 
materialism  is  concerned.  But  it  is  impossible 
that  we  should  be  satisfied  with  mere  negation, 
and  Mr.  Spencer  will  not  recognize  mind  in  Na- 
ture. Let  us  see,  then,  exactly  how  far  he  goes, 
and  whether  we  are  not  constrained  by  the  ne- 
cessity of  thought  to  go  farther,  even  to  the  pos- 
itive recognition  of  a  Mind  in  Nature  as  the  only 
•conceivable  explanation  of  its  phenomena. 

In  order  to  bring  out  his  meaning  we  will 
quote  two  passages,  —  the  first  from  the  sixth 
chapter,  and  the  second  from  the  fifth  chapter, 
of  his  "First  Principles."  "The  force,"  he  says, 
"  of  which  we  assert  persistence  is  that  Absolute 
Force  of  which  we  are  indefinitely  conscious  as 
the  necessary  correlate  of  the  force  we  know. 
By  the  Persistence  of  Force,  we  really  mean  the 
persistence  of  some  Cause  which  transcends  our 
knowledge  and  conception.  In  asserting  it  we 
assert  an  Unconditioned  Reality,  without  begin- 
ning or  end."  Again,  "  The  consciousness  of 
an  Inscrutable  Power  manifested  to  us  through 
all  phenomena,  has  been  growing  ever  clearer; 
and  must  eventually  be  freed  from  its  imperfec- 
tions. The  certainty  that  on  the  one  hand  such 
a  Power  exists,  while  on  the  other  hand  its 
nature  transcends   intuition  and  is  beyond  im- 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MA  TERIALISM.    I  5  5 

agination,  is  the  certainty  towards  which  intelli- 
gence has  from  the  first  been  progressing.  To 
this  conclusion  Science  inevitably  arrives  as  it 
reaches  its  confines;  while  to  this  conclusion 
Religion  is  irresistibly  driv^en  by  criticism.  And 
satisfying  as  it  does  the  demands  of  the  most 
rigorous  logic,  at  the  same  time  that  it  gives  the 
religious  sentiment  the  widest  possible  sphere 
of  action,  it  is  the  conclusion  we  arc  bound  to 
accept  without  reserve  or  qualification." 

Every  one  can  see  how  near  Mr.  Spencer's 
utterances  come  to  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel, 
so  near  indeed  that  some  have  claimed  him  as 
a  supporter  of  Divine  Revelation.  We  know, 
however,  that  such  was  not  his  intention.  He 
meant  to  declare  that  the  Power  which  lies  be- 
hind natural  phenomena  is  both  unknown  and 
unknowable.  He  meant  to  deny  that  we  had 
or  could  have  any  knowledge  of  God,  if  there 
is  a  God,  and  therefore  to  deny  that  there  is  any 
room  for  a  Divine  Revelation.  And  yet  he 
allows  that  this  hidden  power  is  "  manifested," 
while  he  says  we  can  know  no  more  of  It  than 
is  manifested.  Now  this  is,  after  all,  not  very 
different  from  Christian  teaching.  We  hold  that 
God  can  be  known  only  in  so  far  as  He  mani- 
fests Himself,  and  that  there  are  depths  in  the 
Divine  nature  which  man  cannot  explore. 

There  is,  however,  one  postulate  in  our  state- 
ments which  Mr.  Spencer  would  not  concede. 
In  the  Power,  the  Force  which  lies  behind  the 


I   i 


'^m 


a 


m 


vm 


\  ''  I 


mmmmmmmm 


156 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


r\ 


% 
% 


phenomena  of  Nature,  we  recognize  Mind,  we 
discover  a  Person ;  and  this  to  Mr.  Spencer 
would  be  a  contradiction.  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  that  we  should  point  out  the  insuffi- 
ciency and  unsatisfactoriness  of  the  positivist 
and  agnostic  position  generally,  and  also  indi- 
cate the  steps  by  which  we  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion to  which  we  hold  fast.  In  doing  so,  we 
set  ourselves  in  opposition  not  to  Mr.  Spencer 
or  any  other  writer  in  particular,  nor  to  any 
particular  form  of  materialism,  but  to  that  sys- 
tem in  general  which  refuses  to  consider  any 
truths  as  ascertained  beyond  the  facts  and  laws 
of  the  material  universe,  which  denies  that  be- 
hind the  phenomena  of  nature  we  can  recognize 
an  Infinite  Mind,  a  Personal  Gc  i  In  other 
words,  we  here  break  away  from  tfie  agnostic 
position  generally. 

Now,  let  us  consider  what  statements  like  those 
of  the  Positivist  or  Agnostic  actually  mean  and 
imply.  Certainly,  there  is  this  involved  in  them, 
—  that  vye  may  know  matter,  but  that  we  cannot 
know  mind;  or  else  that  while  matter  exists  and 
may  be  known,  there  really  is  no  mind  for  us  to 
know.  As  has  already  been  said,  according  to 
the  system  which  we  are  opposing,  thought  is  a 
mere  product  of  organized  matter,  generated  as, 
for  example,  electricity  is  generated,  and  needs 
nothing  else  to  account  for  it  but  the  interaction 
of  material  particles. 

We  do  not  at  present  ask  if  such  a  system  can 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 57 


satisfy  our  conscience,  our  religious  nature,  our 
longings  for  immortality,  and  the  like.  \Vc  now 
ask  merely  whether  it  will  satisfy  our  intelli- 
gence. Having  regard  to  what  we  know  of 
ourselves,  can  we  believe  it?  It  would  hardly  . 
be  possible,  we  imagine,  to  give  a  better  answer 
to  this  theory  which  tells  us  that  we  can  know 
matter  but  that  we  cannot  know  mind,  than  that 
which  is  given  by  Lotze  in  his  "  Mikrokosmus."  ^ 
"Among  all  the  errors  of  the  human  mind,"  he 
remarks,  "  it  has  always  seemed  to  me  the 
strangest  that  it  could  come  to  doubt  its  own 
existence,  of  which  alone  it  has  direct  experi- 
ence, or  to  take  it  at  second  hand  as  the  product 
of  an  external  Nature  which  we  know  only  indi- 
rectly, —  only  by  means  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
very  mind  to  which  we  would  deny  existence." 

Thoroughly  to  understand  this   statement   is 
unhesitatingly  to  receive  it  as  true.     We  do  not  L 
really  know  the  external  world.     We  know,  di-.f^ 
rectly  and  immediately,  only  our  own  states  of'T 
mind.     "  We  are  so  used  in  Nature,"  says  Lotze 
again,  "  to  find  momentous  differences  in  prop- 
erties traced  back  to  trifling  alterations  in  the 
amount  and  mode  of  combination  of  homogeneous 
elements,  that  at  last  we  lose  all  understanding  of 
anything  immediate,  and  unconsciously  become 
possessed  by  a  passion   for   construing  every- 
thing,   assigning   to   everything   a   complicated 
machinery  as  the  means  of  its  origination  and 

1  Book  ii.  chap.  v.  p.  263  (English  translation). 


If  w 


i;      I 


158 


IV/TXESSES   TO   CITRIST. 


¥       %\ 


|;;  1 

N^ll 

i  '■':■  :\    '^"  '  ' 

operation.  Wc  would  then  fain  assert  that  even 
within  us  there  is  nothinj^  but  an  exterior  con- 
catenation of  events,  rescmi^ling  the  communica- 
tion of  movement  by  which,  in  the  outer  world, 
we  see  one  element  come  into  collision  with 
another ;  and  all  else  that  we  find  within,  —  con- 
sciousness, feeling,  and  effort,  —  we  are  almost 
tempted  to  regard  as  only  a  kind  of  accidental 
reflection  in  us  of  that  real  action,  unless  indeed 
we  see  that  there  must  be  something  for  which 
and  in  which  this  reflection  arises.  That  some- 
thing there  is ;  every  several  expression  of  our 
consciousness,  every  stirring  of  our  feelings, 
every  dawning  resolution,  calls  aloud  that  pro- 
cesses, not  to  be  measured  by  the  standard  of 
physical  notions,  do  indeed  take  place  with  un- 
conquerable and  undeniable  reality.  So  long 
as  we  have  this  experience,"  the  writer  goes 
on,  "  Materialism  may  prolong  its  existence 
and  celebrate  its  triumphs  within  the  schools, 
where  so  many  ideas  estranged  from  life  take 
shelter;  but  its  own  professors  will  belie  their 
false  creed  in  their  living  action.  For  they  will 
all  continue  to  love  and  hate,  to  hope  and  fear, 
to  dream  and  study ;  and  they  will  in  vain  seek 
to  persuade  us  that  this  varied  exercise  of  men- 
tal energies,  which  even  deliberate  denial  of  the 
supersensual  cannot  destroy,  is  a  product  of 
their  bodily  organization,  or  that  the  love  of  truth 
exhibited  by  some,  the  sensitive  vanity  betrayed 
by  others,  has  its  origin  in  *'ieir  cerebral  fibres." 


U':\ 


THE  lA'Sri-'FlClEXCY  OF  MArERLlLISM.  ^  I  59 

So  far,  then,  wc  maintain  that  mind  is  not  a 
tliinf;  to  us  unl-cnown,  or  a  thin^^  which  wc  know 
through  tiic  medium  of  matter:  we  maintain,  on 
the  contrary,  tliat  wc  know  mind  directly  and 
immediately,  and  matter  only  through  the  me- 
dium of  mind.  And  this  leads  us  to  ask  what 
is  the  nature  of  the  knowledge  which  wc  have 
of  the  external  world,  —  whether  the  thoughtfid 
study  of  its  phenomena  will  guide  us  to  an  ac- 
quiescence in  the  opinion  that  there  is  nothing 
which  can  be  known  in  Nature  save  matter  and 
an  unknown  and  unknowable  force  which  works 
in  it,  or  whether  we  shall  not  be  constrained  to 
recognize  behind  the  phenomena  of  Nature  the 
existence  of  a  Personal  Mind,  which,  although  It 
be  infinite  and  absolute,  and  therefore  such  as 
cannot  be  comprehended  by  the  finite  and  the 
relative,  yet  may  be,  and  actually  is,  known  in  ' 
so  far  as  It  reveals  Itself  and  as  that  revelation 
is  received  by  man.  It  seems  to  us  that  this 
latter  conclusion  may  be  "  demonstrated  "  with 
sufficient  completeness,  having  regard  to  the 
nature  of  the  subject. 

It  was  one  chief  aim  of  the  philosopher  Kant, 
in  his  "  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,"  to  point  out 
tliat  there  was  a  necessary  a  priori  element  in 
the  mind  of  man,  without  which  no  experience 
would  be  possible.  Kant  did  not  for  a  moment 
think  of  denying  that  all  our  knowledge  came 
to  us  through  experience,  through  sensuous  ex- 
peric'^  'e ;  but  he  pointed    out  that   before  our 


im\ 


*  ■  ? 


m 


f^ 


1      !•  ''.. 


1 60 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


|i ... 


li 


A- 


i' 


'i.'i 


,+ 


sensations  could  be  turned  into  thoughts  there 
must  be  an  operation  of  elements  not  given  from 
without,  but  already  existing  in  the  mind  itself. 
This  is,  in  brief,  Kant's  doctrine  of  the  catego- 
ries, or  forms  of  thought  in  the  understanding. 
A  simple  illustration  of  this  doctrine  will  lead  us 
on  our  way  to  the  goal  which  we  are  endeavor- 
ing to  reach. 

When  we  turn  our  eyes  towards  external  ob- 
jects, we  first  note  certain  resemblances  or  dif- 
ferences by  which  they  are  distinguished.  We 
proceed  to  generalize  and  classify,  and  to  note 
the  relations  which  subsist  between  one  object 
and  another,  between  ourselves  and  those  objects 
of  our  perceptions.  Our  knowledge  or  observa- 
tion of  those  relations  is  set  forth  in  what  we  call 
a  law;  and  so  by  degrees  we  come  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  laws  of  Nature,  —  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion, for  example,  the  laws  under  which  nia'.L^i 
expands  and  contracts,  and  the  like.  Whence 
do  we  obtain  the  knowledge  of  those  laws?  Not 
from  mere  sensation.  Mere  sensation  has  not 
the  character  of  thought.  The  element  by  which 
that  is  constituted  must  be  derived  from  the 
mind  itself.  It  is  this  which  principally  distiri- 
guishes  man  from  the  lower  species  of  animated 
Nature.  There  is,  then,  a  sense  in  which  laws 
are  made  by  man.  And  at  this  point  the  argu- 
ment is  sometimes  allowed  to  stop ;  but  surely 
the  same  train  of  reasoning  may  be  carried 
further. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     l6l 


When  we  speak  of  laws  of  Nature  which  are 
perceived  by  all  men  in  common  who  are  en- 
dowed with  the  same  nature  as  ourselves,  we  do 
not  mean  that  we  have  invented  or  created  those 
laws.  It  is  true,  they  are  not  present  in  our 
sensations.  They  do  not  present  themselves 
visibly  or  tangibly  to  our  perception.  We  can- 
not in  any  way  make  an  image  or  picture  of 
them.  They  are  inferences  of  the  mind  from 
the  phenomena  of  Nature.  But,  although  infer- 
ences of  the  mind,  they  are  not  creations  of 
the  mind.  They  have  a  certain  kind  of  exist- 
ence, for  they  are  actually  operating.  Where, 
then,  do  they  exist?  There  can  be  but  one  an- 
swer to  that  question.  They  exist  in  a  Mind 
which  bears  a  certain  resemblance  to  our  own. 
And  this,  in  fact,  it  is,  which  makes  it  possible 
for  ourselves  to  recognize  them.  The  mind  of 
man  perceives  in  Nature  the  working  of  a  mind 
to  which  it  is  itself  akin. 

This  argument  is  quite  distinct,  as  you  will 
readily  perceive,  from  the  so-called  tcleological, 
or  argument  from  design.  As,  however,  we  be- 
lieve that  this  latter  argument  is  valid,  although 
we  do  not  rest  upon  it,  and  as  both  arguments 
have  certain  objections  urged  against  them  in 
common,  we  will  here  briefly  indicate  the  nature 
of  the  argument  from  design,  variously  known 
as  the  argument  from  final  causes,  the  tcleo- 
logical, or  the  physico-theological  argument. 

It  is  certainly  one  of  our  deepcs^:  convictions, 

II 


iK>^ 


1 62 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


Si       \ 


I  f 

H  1 

it., 


■«4 


^iii, 


'•H' 

<" 


,,  ■■••»■ 


^^m 


ii 

VC- 

!  ! 

■  r 

wm 

\  y  that  everytliing  which  exists  has  some  use  or 
purpose  ;  and  we  can  generally  trace  the  appear- 
ance of  design  in  the  objects  of  Nature.  Even 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  declares  that  "  there  can 
be  no  true  conception  of  a. structure jvithout  a 
true  conception  of  its  function.  To  understand 
how  an  organization  originated  and  developed,  it 
is  requisite  to  understand  the  need  subserved."  ^ 
This  sounds  very  much  like  teleology.  Now, 
it  may  be  quite  true  that  Kant's  metaphysical 
objections  to  this  argument  are  unanswerable; 
and  yet  it  may  not  follovv  that  it  has  not  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  validity.  In  fact,  there  are  few 
persons  who  can  entirely  divest  themselves  of  a 
feeling  of  its  power.  It  is  the  most  popular  of 
all  the  theories.  Even  Kant  had  a  tenderness 
for  it.  It  came  very  near  freeing  J.  S.  Mill  from 
the  bondage  of  atheism.  We  may  even  hope 
that  it  succeeded.  When  a  man  can  write,  as 
Mr.  Mill  wrote,2  "  It  must  be  allowed  that,  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge,  the  adaptations 
in  Nature  afford  a  large  b;'lance  of  probability 
in  favor  of  creation  by  intelligence,"  he  cannot 
be  far  from  the  faith  of  the  Unseen.  A  large 
balance  of  probability?  Surely,  this  is  practi- 
cal demonstration ;  for,  as  Butler  remarks,  "  to 
us  probability  is  the  very  guide  of  life." 

It  is  objected,   however,  by  Mill,    Kant,  and 
others,   that   even   if    we  accepted    all    that    is 

1  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,  chap.  i. 
'^  Three  Essays,  p.  174. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 63 


fairly  dcducible  from  the  appearance  of  pur- 
pose in  the  world,  the  result  would  be  insuffi- 
cient. We  should  have  the  revelation  of  a  finite 
and  limited  being,  and  not  of  One  who  was 
infinite  and  absolute.  Let  us  see  how  far  such 
an  objection  is  valid.  Kant  states  it  in  the 
following  manner:  "The  utmost,"  he  says,^ 
"  that  could  be  established  by  such  a  proof 
would  be  an  Architect  of  the  world,  always 
very  much  hampered  by  the  quality  of  the  ma- 
terial with  which  he  has  to  work,  not  a  Creator, 
to  whose  idea  everything  is  subject.  This  would 
by  no  means  suffice  for  the  pu'-posed  aim  of 
proving  an  all-sufficient  origiiial  Being."  Some- 
what to  the  same  effect  are  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
Mill.  He  says  the  argument  from  design  proves  ' 
aFornier^  and  not  a  Creator,  and  that  it  does 
not  prove  the  Maker  to  be  infinite  or  all- 
powerful. 

Now,  what  is  the  real  value  of  these  objec- 
tions? Do  they  not  simply  tell  us  that  the 
Infinite  cannot  or  does  not  reveal  His  infinity? 
But  how  is  it  possible  that  He  should  do  so?  For 
in  that  case  He  must  first  have  created  another 
Infinite  to  whom  He  could  be  revealed.  And 
such  a  notion  is  a  simple  contradiction.  There 
cannot  be  two  Infinites,  two  Absolutes,  two  uni- 
verses. In  creation  the  Creator  of  necessity 
imposes  limitations  upon  Himself  in  doing  His 

^  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  part  IL,  division  ii.,  p.  538 
(Max  MuUer's  translation). 


»".    ..,1      i»i  .(  e*«,'y 


•"v  , 


^\i  /;(' 


-  as ' 


1 64 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


\   \ 


V      ' 


work ;  and  in  this  there  is  nothing  derogatory  to 
His  glory  and  greatness.  The  limitation  is  from 
witliin,  and  not  from  without. 

A  similar  answer  must  be  given  to  the  objec- 
tion that  the  Mind  which  we  recognize  behind 
or  under  Nature  in  the  laws  by  which  it  is  gov- 
erned is  not  an  Infinite  Mind,  or  at  least  is  not 
known  as  such.  It  will  be  necessary  to  state 
very  carefully  what  we  actually  maintain,  before 
we  proceed  to  meet  the  various  objections  as 
they  arise.  In  the  first  place,  then,  we  hold  that 
there  is  in  Nature  a  revelation  of  Mind,  and  on 
this  point  perhaps  enough  has  been  said.  Fur- 
ther, we  are  agreed  with  our  opponents  that  an 
Infinite  Mind  is  not,  and  cannot,  be  revealed  in 
creation.  But,  again,  we  maintain  that  there  is 
an  Infinite  and  Absolute,  the  Origin,  Basis,  Con- 
dition of  all  existence.  Further,  that  this  Ab- 
solute is  Intelligence,  Mind,  Thought,  Spirit. 
Moreover,  that  this  Spirit  is  personal ;  and  finally, 
that  the  belief  in  the  personality  of  the  Infinite 
and  Absolute  involves  no  contradiction  what- 
ever. If  we  can  satisfactorily  establish  these 
points,  our  work  will  be  accomplished. 

We  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  cause  or 
ground,  whichever  you  please,^  of  those  natural 
phenomena  in  which  we  discern  the  operation 
of  law  must  be  mental,  spiritual;  and  v^^e  have 
admitted  that  we  have  no  demonstration  of  the 


1  Wc  do  not  stand  out  for  the  word 
"  basis,"  "  origin,"  will  do  quite  as  well. 


cause ; "  "  ground," 


\ 


I 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIAirSM.     1 65 


i 


infinitude  of  that  cause.  But  it  is  quite  clear  ^ 
that  the  First  Cause  must  be  infinite ;  for  if  it  is 
finite,  limited,  then  we  must  think  of  something 
beyond  its  limits,  so  that  there  is  something 
else  which  must  be  taken  into  account  in  esti- 
mating the  complete  nature  of  the  First  Cause, 
or  else  we  must  believe  in  something  existing 
which  has  not  been  caused ;  and  if  this  is  ad- 
mitted we  must  allow  that  there  is  no  need  to 
assume  a  cause  for  anything,  so  that  the  princi- 
ple of  causation  must  be  given  up.  It  is,  there- 
fore, impossible  that  the  First  Cause  should  be 
o*;her  than  infinite. 

So,  again,  the  First  Cause  must  be  indcpend-1^ 
ent.  "  If  it  is  dependent,  it  cannot  be  the  First 
Cause  ;  for  that  must  be  the  First  Cause  on 
which  it  depends.  .  .  .  Thus  the  First  Cause 
must  be  in  every  sense  perfect,  complete,  total, 
including  within  itself  all  power;  or,  to  use  the 
established  word,  it  must  be  absolute."  It  would 
detain  us  too  long  to  repeat  hero  the  criticism 
of  these  statements  ofi"ercd  by  Mr.  Spencer  and 
others,  especially  as  we  are  not  resting  our  argu- 
ment upon  them.  The  conclusion  at  which  we 
arrive  is  well  stated,  although  it  is  not  accepted, 
by  Mr.  Spencer.  "  Merc,  then,"  he  says,  "  re- 
specting the  nature  of  the  universe,  we  seem 
committed  to  certain  unavoidable  conclusions. 
The  objects  and  actions  surrounding  us,  not  less 

^  Compare  the  statement  in  Spencer's  "  First  Principles," 
chap.  ii. 


r 


V\i 


i^ 


I  5.„   .... 


<  u 


3 


n 


1 66 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


than  the  phenomena  of  our  own  consciousness, 
compel  us  to  ask  a  cause ;  in  our  search  for  a 
cause  we  discover  no  resting-phice  until  we 
arrive  at  the  hypothesis  of  a  First  Cause;  and 
we  have  no  alternative  but  to  regard  this  First 
as  infinite  and  absolute." 

May  we  not,  then,  conclude,  in  view  of  the 
decision  already  arrived  at,  that  the  existence  of 
Mind  is  required  to  explain  the  phenomena  of 
Nature,  and  that  we  must  think  of  the  First  Cause 
as  Infinite  Mind?  So  it  would  appear.  For,  if 
not,  we  must  at  any  rate  say  that  the  immediate 
cause  of  phenomena  is  a  mind,  even  if  we  can- 
not deny  that  that  mind  itself  may  have  been 
caused.  But  if  this  is  so,  then  the  more  remote 
cause  must  also  have  been  a  mind,  and  so  on 
until  we  reach  the  First  Cause,  which  itself  must 
also  be  a  mind,  and  infinite  and  independent;  so 
that  again  we  reach  the  idea  of  Absolute  Mind 
as  the  First  Cause. 

However  just  this  reasoning  may  appear,  it  is 
called  in  question  from  various  quarters.  In  the 
first  place,  we  are  reminded  of  Hegel's  theory  of 
the  absolute  as  Spirit,  which  comes  to  conscious- 
ness in  man ;  and  secondly,  we  are  told  that 
Personality  and  the  Absolute  are  incompatible 
ideas,  —  that  the  Infinite  is,  of  necessity,  imper- 
sonal, and  personality  is,  of  necessity,  finite. 
Let  us  examine  these  statements.  In  the  pre- 
vious remarks  we  were  dealing  with  a  scientific 
objection.     Flere  we  are  met  by  a  metaphysical. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 6/ 

When  Hegel  declares  that  the  Absolute  is  Spirit, 
and  that  the  Spirit  attains  to  consciousness  in 
man,  he  certainly  seems  to  teach  the  imperson- 
ality of  the  Absolute,  —  in  other  words,  sheer 
pantheism.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  most  emi- 
nent expounder  of  Hegelian  doctrine  in  the  Eng- 
lish language,  Dr.  Stirling,  asserts  that  Hegel 
was  no  pantheist,  and  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
teach  pantheistic  doctrine.  It  is,  perhaps,  a  bold 
thing  to  say  positively  what  Hegel  must  have 
meant.  Certainly,  he  has  very  commonly  been 
understood  to  teach  pantheism,  and  it  is  difficult 
to  attach  any  other  meaning  to  his  words. ^  But 
in  any  case  we  must  consider  the  difficulty,  and 
see  whether  it  involves  any  real  objection  to  our 
conclusion  respecting  the  cause  of  the  universe. 
The  views,  then,  to  which  we  refer,  "  commonly 
announce  this  clement  [the  Absolute]  as  a  Rea- 
son which  is  per  sc  unconscious ;  which  only  in 
individual  points  of  its  extreme  altitude,  in  indi- 
vidual spiritual  beings,  raises  itself  to  conscious- 
ness."^ This  view  is  well  answered  by  Lotze, 
who  says:  "  Such  a  form  of  conception  as  the 
foregoing  appears  inadmissible.  We  have  no 
right  to  strip  off  from  the  Reason  which  we  inva- 
riably first  learn  by  experience  to  know  as  con- 
scious, this  predicate  of  consciousness,  and  then 


i  J 


1  Dr.  Morris,  the  accomplished  Professor  of  Philosophy  in 
the  University  of  IMichigan,  has  drawn  my  attention  to  passages 
in  Hegel  which  support  Dr.  Stirling's  view. 

'^  Lotze,  "  Philosophy  of  Religion,"  chap.  ii.  §  24. 


r 

•tin 


a  »;  t ; 

1'!  '■! 


i68 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


persuade  ourselves  that  aught  intelligible  is  left 
still  remaining.  Rather  is  it  true  that  only  one 
definite  thought  admits  of  being  connected  with 
the  expression,  '  a  reason  acting  unconsciously 
in  tb'.'  world;  '  namely,  the  thought  that  blifid 
forces  act  in  the  world,  which  are  not  in  any 
respect  reason,  but  which  in  fact  act  so  that  their 
results  are  the  same  as  those  which  a  reason 
acting  in  the  world  would  have  been  compelled 
to  desire." 

If  we  declare  that  such  a  conclusion  is  at 
variance  with  all  experience,  we  shall  probably 
be  told  that  we  have  no  right  to  infer  anything 
concerning  the  infinite  from  what  we  know  of 
the  finite.  But  we  must  remind  the  objector 
that  wc  are  here  keeping  strictly  within  the  lim- 
its of  that  which  we  do  know,  —  namely,  mind 
and  its  operations.  We  do  know  our  own  mind 
directly  and  immediately,  and  by  that  mind  we 
are  compelled  to  recognize  the  working  of  mind 
in  the  phenomena  of  Nature. 

It  is  only  another  way  of  stating  the  same 
view  which  we  have  just  mentioned,  when  we 
are  told  that  the  Absolute  is  Spirit,  but  imper- 
sonal Spirit.  Here,  again,  we  give  in  substance 
the  answer  of  Lotze.  It  is  easy  enough  to  em- 
ploy phrases  of  this  kind,  but  it  is  difficult,  it  is 
impossible,  to  attach  any  intelligible  meaning  to 
them.  It  is  quite  true  that  we  are  not  always, 
so  to  speak,  conscious  of  personality.  We  ex- 
perience many  states  of  feeling  in  which  all  at- 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 69 


tcntion  is  withdrawn  from  our  own  self,  and  we 
do  not  think  of  ourselves  as  distinct  from  the 
non-self  of  the  external  world.  The  sensation, 
the  feeling,  the  notion,  the  effort,  is  for  the  time 
everything,  and  we  ourselves,  as  the  subjects  of 
those  states,  are  forgotten. 

Granting  all  this,  it  is  equally  clear  that  these 
states  are  all  facts  which  take  place  in  a  personal 
spirit.  "  They  merely  prove  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  the  personal  spirit  at  every  moment 
to  think  of  itself  as  different  from  the  content 
which  exactly  fills  out  its  consciousness.  But 
they  cannot  prove  that  anything  similar  is  pos- 
sible without  the  personality,  which,  in  such  a 
case,  does  not  indeed  mentally  represent  itself, 
but  none  the  less  remains  in  fact  the  condition 
of  the  possibility  of  such  a  self-forgetfulness. 
For  all  the  aforesaid  sensations,  ideas,  or  feel- 
ings, in  which  we  thus  lose  ourselves,  are,  after 
all,  never  thinkable  except  as  states  of  a  definite, 
self-identical,  and  distinct  spiritual  subject,  and 
not  the  least  consecutiveness,  nor  any  coherency 
according  to  law  between  these  different  spirit- 
ual states,  would  be  possible,  unless  the  personal 
unity  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  by  no  means  appar- 
ent in  them,  were,  for  all  that,  the  real  ground 
which  unites  them  with  one  another." 

One  other  statement,  drawn  from  the  nature 
of  Personality,  remains  to  be  considered.  It  is 
alleged  that  the  idea  of  Personality  is  incompat- 
ible with  that  of  the  Absolute.     The  Ego,  it  is 


I' 


...  I*  ^ 


''I 


'Ml 

t',  K 


'  .1  ■ 


.US  ..I 


!;;■ 
1*!^ 


170 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


said,  cannot  be  thought  without  a  Non-Ego. 
The  moment  vvc  say  /,  we  imply  a  something 
which  is  Not-I ;  and  such  a  contrast  is  impos- 
sible to  the  Absolute,  which  is  infinite  and  all- 
comprehending.  By  attributing  to  the  Absolute 
such  an  attribute,  it  is  said,  we  make  Ilim  finite. 
It  is  important  to  examine  this  objection,  since 
we  must  probably  regard  it  as  the  principal 
argument  now  commonly  employed  to  destroy 
the  proof  of  the  Divine  Personality.  How  far 
is  it  valid,  or  the  reverse?  Let  us  grant,  then, 
that  in  thinking  of  our  own  personality,  in  call- 
ing one's  self/,  we  do  mark  out  our  own  position 
as  distinct  from  that  of  the  world  around  us,  or 
whatever  it  may  bo,  perhaps  we  should  say 
rather  the  whole  of  existence  besides  ourselves, 
which  wc  call  the  Non-Ego.  This  is  quite  clear. 
Yet  this  Non-Ego,  this  negative  conception,  is 
not  the  idea  in  which  the  sense  of  our  own  per- 
sonality originated.  On  the  contrary,  personal 
existence  is  implied  in  all  mental  experience. 
Every  feeling  and  thought  and  effort  supposes  a 
ground  in  which  it  has  its  origin,  a  ground  in 
which  consciousness  exists  altogether  apart  from 
any  consideration  of  its  external  relations.  It 
is  when  the  Ego  looks  upon  itself  as  limited, 
when  it  becomes  conscious  of  its  limitations, 
that  it  recognizes  outside  of  itself  all  that  is  not 
contained  within  those  limitations ;  and  this  is 
what  it  distinguishes  from  itself  as  the  not-self, 
or  Non-Ego. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     I/I 


But  surely  these  very  considerations  show  how 
inapplicable  are  these  limitations  to  the  Ab- 
solute ;  for  He  is  the  absolutely  unconditioned. 
It  is  because  we  arc  forced  to  acknowledge  our 
own  limitations  that  wc  arc  compelled  to  recog- 
nize a  Non-ego  or  Not-I.  We  can  draw  a  cir- 
cular line  around  ourselves,  and  outside  of  that 
circle,  limited  as  it  is,  there  is  the  unlimited. 
But  the  Absolute  and  the  Infinite  cannot  be 
thus  enclosed,  and  there  is  no  finite  or  infinite 
external  to  Him.  By  whatever  name  we  call 
this  Absolute,  we  can  say,  "  Of  Him,  and  through 
Him,  and  to  Him,  and  in  Him  are  all  things;" 
yea,  in  the  Absolute  "  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being."  ^ 

From  another  point  of  view  it  is  clear  that  the 
analogy  of  the  finite  is  inapplicable  to  the  In- 
finite. It  is  by  means  of  the  external  world 
that  the  finite  is  roused  to  feeling,  thought,  and 
action ;  and  in  this  respect  the  Non-Ego  plays  a 
part  which  can  have  nothing  corresponding  to 
it  in  the  nature  of  the  Infinite, —  for  that  is  ab- 
solutely self-sufficient,  and  is  dependent  upon 
nothing  besides  itself. 

Let  us  sec,  then,  to  what  our  inquiry  has  con- 
ducted us.  We  set  out  with  the  thesis  of  the 
insufficiency  of  materialism,  and  we  have  done 
our  best  to  consider  what  has  been,  and  can  be, 


* 


;!»: 


^  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  will  suggest  itself  as 
meeting  some  of  the  ditiliculties  proposed.  But  it  could  not 
properly  be  here  used  as  an  argument. 


172 


WnWESSES   TO  CHRIST, 


■^♦fePi 


urL^cd  on  the  other  side.  It  is  true  that  our 
treatment  of  the  subject  has  been  very  partial 
and  incomplete.  It  could  not  be  otherwise. 
Apart  from  the  limitations  of  time,  it  would  not 
be  possible  oi;  expedient  to  enter  upon  a  pro- 
longed metaphysical  discussion.  Hut  no  diffi- 
culty of  importance  has  been  ignored  ;  and  it  is 
believed  that  the  answers  which  have  been  sug- 
gested in  outline  will  bear  the  test  of  examina- 
tion, and  will  acquire  additional  force  the  longer 
they  are  considered. 

What,  then,  are  the  conclusions  at  which  we 
have  arrived?  And  are  they  such  as  to  justify 
us  in  pronouncing  upon  the  insufficiency  of 
materialism?  We  have  shown  that  materialism, 
pure  and  simple,  is  now  held  by  no  school  of 
thought,  —  that  the  notion  that  all  existence  has 
originated  from  certain  elementary  particles  of 
matter  and  their  interaction,  is  abandoned  by 
all  scientific  thinkers  as  an  impossible  theory  of 
the  world.  We  have  seen  that  many,  endeav- 
oring to  supply  the  defects  of  a  merely  mate- 
rialistic theory,  have  supposed  the  existence 
of  another  principle  which  is  called  Force  or 
Energy,  —  a  power  which  certainly  acts  and  is 
manifested  in  the  phenomena  of  the  world,  yet 
which  is  unknown  and  unknowable.  We  have 
recognized  in  this  energy  some  of  the  attributes 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  apply  to  Almighty 
God ;  but  while  we  acknowledge  that  He  is  in 
a  sense  the  unknowable,  the  unsearchable,  yet 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     173 

wc  declare  that  lie  has  manifested  Himself  to 
man  in  various  ways,  and  that  by  such  mani- 
festation I  le  has  made  Himself  known.  Furtlier, 
we  attempted  to  show  that  this  Power  or  Force, 
behind  Nature  or  beneath  it,  —  the  World-cause, 
the  World-f^round,  the  World-order,  as  it  has 
been  differently  named, — must  be  Mind.  For 
in  examininf;  the  phenomena  of  Nature,  or  the 
World,  we  discern  beneath  the  distinct  effects 
the  operation  of  principles,  which  we  call  by  the 
name  of  laws,  in  which  laws  we  recognize  the 
working  of  a  Mind  to  which  our  own  is  akin.^ 
^  At  this  point  we  paused  to  consider  some 
theories  of  a  different  character,  and  some  objec- 
tions to  the  personality  of  the  Absolute  Mind 
whom  wc  recognized  as  the  ground  of  existence. 
On  the  one  hand,  we  saw  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  holding  that  the  undeveloped  Spirit 
was  unconscious  as  an  inference  from  similar 
states  in  the  case  of  finite  beings;  on  the  other, 
that  the  expression  Impersonal  Spirit  was  a  mere 
phrase,  to  which  no  intelligible  meaning  could  be 
attached.  Further,  the  argument  that  the  asser- 
tion of  personality  was  the  denial  of  the  absolute 
was  shown  to  rest  upon  an  imperfect  examina- 
tion of  finite  experience,  and,  even  if  it  were 
valid  for  the  finite,  could  have  no  application  to 
the  Infinite. 

1  This  conclusion,  scientifically  deduced,  falls  in  with  the 
teaching  of  Divine  Revelation,  that  man  is  made  in  the  image 
of  God. 


IK' 


tl 


'XI 


«  t 

>>:      i 

;  I 

m 


J I 


1~T 


SI 


?'•■: 


Ill 


'I! 


'i' 


174 


WITXESSES   TO   CHRIST, 


It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  arguments  of 
the  Christian  Apologist  arc  drawn  from  sources 
with  which  the  man  of  science  cannot  deal, — 
from  feeling,  faith,  authority,  personal  expe- 
rience, and  the  like.  He  will  not,  perhaps,  be 
a  wise  guide  of  humanity  who  will  ignore  ele- 
ments which  constitute  so  large  a  portion  of 
human  life  and  action.  But,  so  far,  we  have 
listened  to  no  arguments  but  those  which  are 
derived  from  reason.  If  they  are  not  allowed 
to  be  of  a  kind  which  v/e  have  a  right  to  employ, 
then  we  can  only  say  that  all  knowledge,  all  cer- 
tainty, becomes  impossible,  and  we  are  involved 
in  a  universal  scepticism. 

When  Bishop  Berkeley  denied  the  independent 
existence  of  the  external  w^orld,  he  was  supposed 
to  destroy  the  grounds  of  belief  and  action, 
and  to  lead  to  scepticism.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
he  intended  to  strengthen  those  grounds,  and, 
rightly  understood,  he  certainly  did  not  weaken 
them.  When  our  modern  materialists  tell  us 
that  we  know  nothing  excei't  matter  and  its 
laws,  they  do  in  fact  destroy  the  very  grounds  of 
knowledge  and  of  certainty.  They  declare  our 
ignorance  of  that  through  which  alone  we  can 
know  anything  at  all.  If  there  is  any  knowledge, 
there  is  the  knowledge  of  mind ;  and  if  we  have 
the  knowledge  of  mind,  then  we  cannot  stop 
short  of  recognizing  the  mind  which  works  in 
what  we  call  the  laws  of  Nature. 

We  are  contented  with  this  line  of  argument, 


li, 


T//E  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 75 

and  wc  believe  it  is  conclusive;  but  we  arc  not 
contented  to  ignore  other  elements  in  man's 
constitution.  When  we  spoke  of  the  true  nature 
of  a  full  and  liberal  human  culture,  wc  at- 
tempted to  show  how  insufficient  was  every  pro- 
vision for  that  purpose  which  did  not  include 
the  knowledge  of  God.  The  thought  might  be 
carried  further.  We  might  apply  it  to  the  facts 
of  human  history  and  human  experience  in  all 
the  extent  of  their  significance. 

Man  is  a  worshipper.  lie  has  always  wor- 
shipped. He  cannot  help  worshipping.  If  he 
cannot  find  God,  he  will  fashion  an  idol  and  fall 
down  before  the  work  of  his  hands.  And  what 
does  materialistic  science  offer  him  in  place  of 
God?  An  absolute,  unknown,  and  unknowable 
Force.     Can  he  worship  thus :  — 

"  We  praise  Thee,  O  Eternal  Force  :  wc  acknowledge  Thee  to 
be  unsearchable. 
All   the  earth  doth  worship  Thee,  the   Absolute,   the  Un- 
knowable " .' 

Ho\v,  wc  must  ask  again,  will  it  help  the  con- 
science and  the  will  to  be  told  to  fall  in  with  the 
"  stream  of  tendency  that  makes  for  righteous- 
ness," or  to  cultivate  "  a  morality  touched  with 
emotion  "? 

But  there  is  something  darker  and  deadlier 
still  to  remember  as  the  outcome  of  this  de- 
grading theory  which  turns  life  into  death,  and 
shuts  the  gates  of  immortality  before  the  long- 
ing eyes  of  us  poor  children  of  a  day.     It  is  not 


,1 

4- 


ill 


i '  ■■;■ 


I      }\\ 


'•J  , 


1^1 


'^"    I, 


^s 


1 


llli 


i;6 


WITNESS  :S   TO   CHRIST. 


merely,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that 
it  takes  away  ono  great  motive  for  moral  effort, 
and  changes  the  whole  character  of  man's  life 
and  work  on  earth.  There  is  something  in- 
volved in  it  even  worse  than  this.  It  is  the 
destruction  of  the  hope  in  which  is  rooted  a 
chief  part  of  the  joy  of  living.  It  is  the  brooding 
of  that  hopelessness  over  the  family  of  man  which 
results,  and  necessarily  results,  in  the  dark  de- 
spair of  pessimism,  the  most  blighting  faith  or 
unfaith  that  the  world  has  ever  known, 

God  is  the  necessary  cJkI  universal  postulate 
of  all  human  life  and  thought  and  action.  He 
is  the  ground  of  all  our  knowledge ;  for  all 
thought  becomes  confused  when  lie  is  banished 
or  ignored.  He  is  the  root  of  the  moral  nature, 
the  conscience,  the  will;  for  right  and  wrong 
have  no  real  meaning  if  there  is  no  God,  and  the 
j  conscience  is  left  to  struggle  with  the  perplexity 
caused  by  a  voice  speaking  with  authority  from 
within,  which  yet  can  give  no  account  of  any 
lawful  source  from  which  it  derives  its  sanctions. 
No  one  pretends  that  the  "  hypothesis  of  God  " 
explains  all  the  mysteries  or  removes  all  the 
difficulties  whicli  are  found  in  human  history, 
l^ut  it  does  at  least  help  to  introduce  something 
like  unity  into  the  multiplicity  of  movements, 
mental  and  physical,  in  which  we  have  our  ovvn 
place  and  action  ;  even  if  it  also  brings  us  face 
to  face  with  other  difficulties  which  do  not 
emerge  in  a  system  which  knows  no  God. 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  0 '■  MATERIALISM.     I'JJ 

Yes,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  existence  of 
a  personal  God  does  involve  difficulties  in  view 
of  the  actual  condition  of  the  world  and  man. 
But  here,  again,  we  have  a  way  of  escape  and  a 
door  of  hope  opened  to  us.  If  we  knew  only  of 
the  God  who  is  revealed  to  us  in  Nature  and  in 
history,  we  should  indeed  be  perplexed  and  doubt- 
ful and  anxious  in  regard  to  our  own  destiny, 
and  that  of  our  fellow-men.  But  the  existence 
of  a  p<  rsonal  God  may  well  suggest  to  us  the 
possibility  of  some  higher  disclosure  of  His 
mind  than  that  which  is  found  in  the  natural 
order. 

And  what  is  there  to  hinder  our  belief  in  such 
a  revelation?  A  freethinking  deistical  writer 
some  years  ago  attempted  to  pour  derision  upon 
what  he  called  contemptuously  a  Book  Rev- 
elation, asserting  that  God  did  sufficientlv  re- 
veal  Himself  in  the  heart  and  life  of  man, 
and  that  no  other  revelation  was  necessary  or 
credible. 

Whether  any  further  revelation  is  necessary  is 
a  question  which  is  sufficiently  answered,  one 
might  suppose,  by  the  nations  of  the  world  who 
make  no  claim  to  possess  such  revelation.  No 
one  will  pretend  that  in  any  place  or  time  men 
stand  in  no  need  of  further  illumination.  Nor 
is  it  strictly  accurate  to  speak  of  the  Christian 
system  as  a  Book  Revelation.  God  was  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh.  It  was  a  revelation,  in  its 
highest  form  and  expression,  in  a  human  life. 

12 


AtvM-fi. .  rti 


r 


\  :. 


(  ■•■ '.  '»l 


m 


178 


WITNESSES    TO   CHRIST. 


And  if  it  be  said  that  we  are  here  entering 
boldly  into  the  region  of  what  is  called  "  super- 
natural religion,"  we  reply  that  there  is  no  other 
religion  but  the  supernatural;  for  religion  has 
to  do  with  God,  and  God  is  above  Nature. 
And  he  who  believes  in  a  personal  God  may 
well  believe  that  He  will  reveal  Himself  to  His 
creatures. 

On  this  point,  happily,  there  is  now  little  dis- 
pute. If  there  is  no  God,  of  course  a  miracle  is 
inconceivable.  If  wc  are  to  accept  the  panthe- 
istic theory,  which  is  only  materialism  or  atheism 
in  another  form,  then  too  a  miracle  is  as  little  to 
be  thought  of.  But  if  the  world  is  ruled  and 
governed  by  an  intelligent,  conscious,  voluntary 
Being,  who  knows  His  creatures  and  can  hold 
communion  with  them,  then  miracles  —  super- 
natural testimonies  to  the  presence,  mind,  work- 
ing, of  God  among  men  —  are  neither  impossible 
nor  improbable. 
I  Such  a  revelation,  such  a  supernatural  mani- 
1  festation  of  Himself,  we  believe  that  God  has 
I  given,  communicating  to  mankind  thereby  a 
knowledge  of  Himself  so  high,  so  pure,  so  full, 
t  that  in  comparison  with  it  all  other  knowledge 
is  but  ignorance.  "  No  man  knowcth  the  Father 
but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal 
Him."  Blessed  are  our  eyes,  for  they  sec  this 
glorious  manifestation  of  the  Most  High  God, 
;Blesscd  are  our  cans,  for  they  hear  the  message 
of  love  and  mercy  which  comes  to  us  from  the 


THE  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  MATERIALISM.     1 79 

lips  of  the  Crucified,  the  Raised,  the  Glorified. 
May  our  hearts  be  opened  to  receive  His  grace ! 
May  we  never  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  His  offers! 
"  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life." 


I- 

m 


» 

n  i 


H-" 


III 


I 


IS.     l»..   !    ;'!') 


r'n    '       if 


\  }  i 


l!|i 


iiil 


I      :|li 


LECTURE    VI. 

THE    PESSIMISM    OF   THE    AGE. 

Connection  between  Faith  and  Action.  —  Different  Tendencies 
in  Human  Nature  explain  tiie  Origin  of  Pessimism  and 
Optimism.  —  Meaning  of  these  Terms.  —  Views  of  Jews, 
Greelvs,  and  Romans. — Christian  View.  —  Sentiment  of 
Deism.  —  lluddhism.  —  I.  Modern  Pessimism,  —  Leopardi, 
Schopenhauer,  Hartmann ;  Leopardi's  three  jiossible  Ways 
of  Happiness;  Schopenhauer's  Theory. —  II.  What  we  are  to 
think  of  Pessimism.  —  i.  Effort  not  necessarily  productive 
of  Unhappincss;  2.  Pleasure  not  merely  Negative  ;  3.  The 
Development  and  Elevation  of  Life  not  a  mere  Increase 
of  Misery.  —  Increased  Sensibility  and  Intelligence  also  a 
Source  of  Happiness.  —  Testimonies  of  lnstin:;t  and  Rea- 
son.—  The  Rei)ly  of  Pessimism:  Men  deceive  themselves. 
—  The  Rejoinder  of  Consciousness.  —  A  Future  Life.  — 
HI.  How  can  we  account  for  Pessimism.' — Partly  the 
Result  of  Temperament  and  Constitution,  i)artly  of  the 
Circumstances  of  Individuals  and  Communities.  —  Chief 
Cause  found  in  the  State  of  Religious  Pelief.  —  Condition 
of  Crcrmanv.  —  Pessimism  can  flourish  only  on  the  Ruins  of 
Faith.  —  E.xamples  of  Faith  and  Unbelief.  —  The  Gospel 
and  Agnosticism.  —  Deism.  —  Atheism  —  Pessimism  the 
last  Word  of  Positivism.  —  Conclusion. 


A 


WRITER,  to  some  of  whose  theories  atten- 
tion will  be  given  in  the  present  lecture, 
has  declared  that  a  man's  faith  cannot  be  wrong 
if  his  life  is  right. 

"  For  forms  of  faith  let  graceless  bigots  fight ; 
His  can't  be  wrong  wh'>i;e  life  is  in  the  right." 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF   THE  AGE. 


I8l 


And  some  have  ^one  still  further,  and  have  pro- 
fessed to  rej^ard  all  beliefs  as  unimportant,  as 
having  no  necessary  effect  upon  conduct.  A 
man  may  be  an  atheist  or  a  Christian,  they 
argue;  but  this  need  make  no  difference  in  the 
principles  by  which  he  guides  his  life.  Belief 
in  a  Supreme  ]3eing  or  in  the  Christian  reli- 
gion is  not  necessary  in  order  to  a  well-ordered 
manner  of  living. 

Whatever  allowance  may  have  to  be  made  for 
the  inconsistencies  of  professing  Christians,  we 
arc  confident  that  no  one  who  really  examines 
with  any  care  the  consequences  of  faith  and  un- 
belief in  human  history  will  consider  these  con- 
clusions to  be  tenable.  On  the  contrary,  we 
shall  find  the  whole  social  system  of  particular 
countries  and  localities  colored  by  the  dominant 
religious  belief;  we  shall  find  particular  ages 
and  epochs  of  the  world  profoundly  affected  by 
the  theological  and  metaphysical  opinions  which 
had  chief  influence  in  those  periods.  It  is  be- 
cause we  entertain  this  conviction,  and  particu- 
larly because  we  believe  the  disease  ot  pessimism^ 
to  be  a  malady  of  the  present  day,  produced 
by  the  peculiar  character  of  the  prevalent 
form  of  unbelief,  that   we  have  chosen  it  as  a 

^  On  this  subject  M.  Caro  published  an  interesting  set  of 
papers  in  the  "  Rc;vue  cics  Deux  Moiidcs,"  which  were  after- 
wards collected  and  published  in  one  volume.  I  am  sor.-y  that 
I  was  unable  to  procure  Mr.  Sully's  work  on  Pessimism,  as  it 
was  out  of  print. 


\\\ 


!  '!f!j 


^1 


f  I 

it 

f! 


J. 


) 


li 


1    Ml 


III 


ill 


lii 


182 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


subject  to  be  discussed  in  the  present  series  of 
lectures. 

We  shall  find  some  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  pessimism  and  of  its  opposite  in  the  different 
tendencies  of  human  nature  which  are  visible, 
more  or  less,  in  every  era  of  its  history,  —  the 
tendency,  on  the  one  hand,  to  make  the  best  of 
everything,  and  the  opposite  tendency  to  make 
the  worst  of  everything.  These  tendencies  seem 
to  arise  from  various  causes ;  to  be  generated, 
in  fact,  sometimes  by  natural  constitution  and 
temperament,  sometimes  by  the  state  of  a  man's 
health,  sometimes  by  the  favorable  or  adverse 
circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed.  They  pro- 
duce different  theories  of  human  life,  —  theories 
which  arc  modified  in  various  ways,  but  which 
may  be  generally  described  as  the  theories  of 
Optimism  and  Pessimism. 

When  a  man  says  he  is  an  o£tiniist,  he  means 
cither  that  everything  is  actually  as  good  as  it  can 
be,  —  and  this  is  the  extreme  form  of  the  theory ; 
or  else  that  everything  is  working  out  a  result 
which  on  the  whole  will  be  the  best  possible, — 
and  this  is  perhaps  the  more  ordinary  form. 
When  a  man  says  he  is  a  pessimist,  he  means 
that  everything  is  very  bad,  —  not  perhaps  the 
worst  that  can  be,  for  then  it  could  be  no  worse, 
and  he  holds  that  things  are  growing  worse  and 
worse ;  but  that  mere  existence  ,is  an  evil,  and 
that  any  good  which  may  be  connected  with  it 
docs   not  constitute   its   main  character,  but  is 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


183 


\ 


simply  a  slight  alleviation  of  its  general  misery, 
some  feeble  streaks  of  light  breaking  the  monot- 
ony of  its  gloom. 

The  general  belief  of  the  ancients — Jews, 
Greeks,  and  Romans  —  was  a  species  of  opti- 
mism. They  believed  that  man  was  made  for 
happiness ;  and  further,  they  believed  that 
men  might  be  happy  and  were  happy  unless 
this  natural  result  were  hindered  by  some  ad- 
verse power.  The  Jew  had  for  his  possession 
a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  He  had 
the  promise  that  he  should  eat  the  good  of  the 
land,  and  sit  in  peace  "  under  the  vine  and  un- 
der the  fig-tree."  If  it  were  otherwise  with  him, 
it  was  because  he  had  fallen  away  from  the  God 
of  Israel. 

The  Greek  and  the  Roman  had  the  same  con- 
viction that  his  normal  condition  was  one  of  en- 
joyment. If  he  suffered  in  mind,  body,  or  estate, 
it  was  through  the  action  of  some  offended  deity 
whom  he  must  propitiate,  or  through  the  in- 
fluence of  some  envious  or  malicious  being  whom 
he  must  reconcile  or  appease.  In  the  optimism 
of  the  ancients,  as  perhaps  we  must  say  in  all 
unmitigated  optimism,*  there  is  a  degree  of 
onesidcdncss  and  shallowness.  Even  if  in  its 
main  principle  it  is  right,  it  excludes  or  ignores 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  facts  of  man's  life; 
it  takes  no  account  of  its  darker  aspects,  which, 
nevertheless,  are  as  real  as  its  brighter.  One 
1  See  Hartmann's  remarks,  c|uotcd  in  Note  G. 


♦1 

It* 


»» 

■*«* 


! 

n 


■St 


K 


W, 


vm 


11 


ii 


t    III 


I'll 


!  I 


" ;.  fell 


I  i.i 
Mil 


i 


J 

'i 

i| 

;  111 

i 

t   ■    !^ 

1' 

L 

184 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


feels  keenly  the  wide  separation,  in  this  respect, 
between  Paganism  and  Christianity.  The  pagan 
ideal  is  the  Apollo,  radiant  with  health  and 
strength  and  beauty  and  hope.  The  Christian 
ideal  is  the  Man  of  sorrows,  acquainted  with 
grief,  His  face  marred  more  than  any  man's. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Christian  ideal 
is  the  truer,  the  deeper,  the  more  tender,  and 
that  which  exercises  the  most  powerful  in- 
fluence over  the  heart  and  mind  of  man. 

It  would  be  a  strange,  an  inexcusable  mistake, 
however,  to  suppose  that  the  Gospel,  even  in  its 
saddest  aspects,  encourages  the  theory  of  pessi- 
mism. The  cross  is  but  the  way  to  the  crown. 
Christianity  cannot,  and  will  not,  ignore  the  facts 
of  human  life,  —  its  sinfulness,  guilt,  and  misery. 
.  Where  sin  is,  there  must  be  suffering.  The 
penalty  lies  upon  the  sinful  individual,  upon 
the  sinful  race.  All  have  sinned,  and  all  must 
suffer,  —  most  of  all,  that  One  who  answers  for 
all  who  partake  of  that  nature  which  lie  has 
assumed  ;  but,  with  the  Gospel,  this  suffering  is 
transitional.  "Weeping  may  endure  for  a  night, 
but  joy  Cometh  in  the  morning."  Those  who 
come  weeping  to  the  grave  find  it  empty ;  those 
who  ask  after  the  buried  Master  are  seeking  for 
the  living  among  the  dead.  He  is  not  there ; 
He  is  risen. 

Consequently,  all  true  Christian  philosophy, 
although  it  has  never  overlooked  the  terrible 
character  and  effects  of  sin,  has  ever  spoken  of 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


185 


man's  destiny  in  a  hopeful  tone.  Even  the  more 
pensive  spirits,  the  AuL^iistines  and  the  Pascals, 
who  sometimes  seem  almost  to  revel  in  their 
melancholy,  never  re^jard  evil  as  a  necessity, 
as  a  lazv,  and  therefore  never  ai)proximatc  to 
pessimism.  Human  sin  and  misery,  in  their 
judgment,  is  the  result  of  alienation  from  God, 
and  is  to  be  healed  by  reconciliation  to  God. 
Man  is  to  be  restored  by  grace.  In  the  Gospel 
the  element  of  hope  separates  it  off  absolutely 
and  entirely  from  pessimism,  which  is  simply 
the  doctrine  of  despair. 

Christian  philosoph}'  must  always,  then,  in  its 
prevailing  tone  be  optimist;  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  every  philosophy  which  believes  in 
a  personal  God.  Such  was  the  prevailing  tone 
of  thoucrht  with  all  classes  of  thinkers  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  l^elievcrs,  sceptics,  un- 
believers alike,  —  most  of  the  last  were  deists, 
and  not  atheists,  —  were  optimists,  and  gener- 
ally of  a  very  pronounced  kind.  Many  of  them 
held  not  merely  that  a  good  time  was  coming, 
that  all  things  were  working  for  good,  but  that 
all  things  were  good.  "  Whatever  is,  is  right;  " 
and  this  aphorism  they  sometimes  charged  with 
a  meaning  which  was  certainly  not  Christian. 

To  .this  school,  generally,  belonged  the  poet'!    /^.'u  *^<^'' 
Pope;   the  freethinkers  Voltaire   and   Rousseau,^{%j  :^►.^*<.^ 
with  slight  differences  of  opinion  in  detail;   and, 
to  a  great  extent,  the  illustrious  Christian  apolo- 
gist  Paley.     The   most   eminent    philosophical  j( 


^J 


'If 

4*. 


ill 

k 


.1.    } 

'■\\\ 

-    ;  :   - 

•  ]: 

-:    \ 

IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


// 


£y   A^4^. 


1.0 


I.I 


'"  ly    1122 
2.0 


1.8 


1.25      1.4 

1.6 

^ 

6"     - 

► 

V] 


<^ 


/} 


A 


ffi 


'V 


f* 


'/ 


■^ 


I 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


33  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  )4S80 

(716)  872-4503 


^V 


"% 


V 


4? 


A'' 


<^/«V<> 


6^ 


^ 


<h 


X" 


0 


C/j 


gr 
^b- 


1 86 


WITNESSES   TO  C///^/ST. 


iii.kii 


Ji'h 


^1.4 


I  ! 


expounder  of  optimism  was  Leibnitz,  who  in  his 
"Th^odiccc"  declared  that  "the  world,  as  it  is, 
is  the  best  of  all  possible  worlds."  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  Pope  in  his  •'  Essay  on  Man:"  — 

"All  nature  is  but  art,  unknown  to  thee; 
All  chance,  direction  which  thou  canst  not  see; 
All  discord,  harmony  not  understood  ; 
All  partial  evil,  universal  good  ; 
And  spite  of  pride,  in  erring  reason's  spite, 
One  truth  is  clear,  Whatever  is,  is  right." 

Statements  so  broad  were  susceptible  of  many 
explanations,  and  might  be  true  or  false  as  they 
were  understood.  To  those  who  believe  in 
moral  good  or  evil,  in  right  and  wrong,  many 
things  are  which  are  not  right,  —  that  is  to  say, 
absolutely  and  in  themselves  right  ;  to  those 
whc.  believe  i  .  a  personal  God,  who  is  Creator, 
Preserver,  Ruler,  Benefactor,  Lover  of  all,  there 
is  a  sense  in  which  all  is  and  must  be  relatively 
right,  —  in  such  a  sense,  we  mean,  that,  on  the 
whole,  it  is  better  that  things  should  be  as  they 
are  than  that  they  should  not  be  ;  that,  on  the 
whole,  creation  and  existence  will  prove  not  to 
have  been  an  evil,  but  a  good,  for  the  manifes- 
tation of  the  glory  of  the  Creator  in  the  secur- 
ing of  good  for  the  created. 

Even  Rousseau  could  see  that  some  such 
principles  as  these  must  constitute  the  belief 
of  theists.  "The  true  principles  of  optimists," 
he  says,  **  can  be  deduced  neither  from  the 
properties  of  matter  nor  from  the  mechanism 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


187 


of  the  universe,  but  only  from  the  perfections 
of  God,  who  presides  over  all ;  so  that  the  ex- 
istence of  God  is  not  proved  by  the  system  of 
Pope,  but  the  system  of  Pope  by  the  existence 
of  God." 

We  have  spoken  of  the  ancient  nations  of  the 
West  and  of  the  Hebrews  as  being  optimist. 
Farther  cast  we  come  into  contact  with  a  dif- 
ferent tendency,  which  finds  its  extreme  expres- 
sion m  Buddhism.  According  to  this  religion, 
if  it  can  be  called  a  religion,  existence  is  the 
great  evil ;  and  everything  which  tends  to  in- 
crease the  sum  of  conscious  being  is  to  be 
discouraged  and  resisted.  It  is  desire  which 
produces  existence.  Desire  is  born  of  the  per- 
ception of  the  illusory  forms  of  being;  and 
these  arc  so  many  effects  of  ignorance.  It  is 
ignorance,  therefore,  which  is  the  first  cause  of 
all  that  seems  to  exist.  To  know  this  igno- 
rance is,  at  the  same  time,  to  destroy  its  effects. 
The  supreme  knowledge  for  man,  then,  is  the 
ceasing  to  deceive  himself.  It  is,  at  the  same 
time,  the  supreme  deliverance,  which  has  four 
degrees,  successively  passed  through  by  the  dy- 
ing Buddha:  (i)  To  know  th'^:  nature  and  the 
vanity  of  all  things;  (2)  To  destroy  in  one's 
self  judgment  and  reason ;  (3)  To  attain  to 
absolute  indiftcrcnce;  (4)  Finally,  to  annihi- 
late all  pleasure,  all  memory,  all  consciousness. 
This  is  the  state  known  as  Nirz^dua,  in  which 
every  light  is  extinguished,  every  idea  is  gone; 


11 


J  I    I' 

m 


1 88 


WITNESSES   TO  CNR/ST. 


i 


I 


in  which,  as  has  been  well  said,  there  is  neither 
idea  nor  absence  of  ideas,  there  is  nothing. 
Modem  pessimism  bears  the  closest  possible 
resemblance  to  Buddhism.  It  starts  from  the 
same  ori<^in,  —  the  absolute  worthlessness  of  hu- 
man life  and  of  all  existence ;  it  seeks  the  same 
end,  —  the  total  extinction  of.  desire,  of  feeling, 
of  all  conscious  existence.  It  is  an  evil  to  be, — 
the  higher  the  degree  of  existence,  the  greater 
the  evil ;  therefore  the  highest  good  is  that 
being  should  cease.  It  is  contended  by  some 
that  Nin'dna  does  not  involve  annihilation.  To 
a  Western  mind,  at  least,  the  difference  is  un- 
intelligible and  inconceivable. 

I.  The  first  apostle  of  modern  pessimism  was 
the  Italian  poet  Leopardi.  He  was  a  man  of 
noble  birth,  apparently  of  spotless  life,  and  en- 
dowed with  many  estimable  qualities.  But  his 
bodily  health  was  weak, — he  was  through  life 
a  great  sufferer,  —  he  was  disappointed  of  some 
of  his  dearest  hopes,  and  he  fell  under  the 
influence  of  a  monk  who  had  apostatized  from 
the  Christian  faith.  Although  Leopardi  seems 
to  have  died  with  some  kind  of  belief,  seeing 
that  he  received  the  last  offices  of  the  Church, 
it  is  evident  that  through  life  he  was  entirely 
destitute  of  anything  that  could  properly  be 
called  faith  in  Christ  or  in  God.  Morbid, 
suffering,  disappointed,  disbelieving,  his  only 
refuge  was  a  philosophy  of  despair.  Although 
his  German  fellow-laborer  in   the  same  cause, 


! 


|i"! 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


189 


Schopenhauer,  began  his  work  about  the  same 
time,  seventy  years  ago  (181 8),  Leopardi  was 
the  first  to  become  widely  known,  and  to  dif- 
fuse the  theories  which  are  now  most  closely 
associated  with  the  name  of  Schopenhauer. 

Leopardi,  like  Sakya  Mounij  the  founder  of 
Buddhism,  held  that  the  great  evil  was  exist- 
ence. But  he  and,  in  a  greater  degree,  his 
successors  have  given  a  scientific  form  to  a 
theory  which,  with  the  Oriental  mystic,  was 
like  an  intuitive  conviction,  and  not  a  reasoned 
belief.  "All,"  says  Leopardi,  "is  a  secret,  ex- 
cept our  sorrow."  ^  "  Our  life,"  he  says  again, — 
"what  is  its  worth,  except  to  be  despised?"^ 
And  this,  which  was  his  own  deepest  conviction, 
he  seeks  to  demonstrate  by  an  examination  of 
the  various  possible  sources  of  happiness. 

There  are,  it  is  said,  three  conceivable  ways 
of  happiness:  it  may  be  found  in  the  world  as 
it  is ;  it  may  be  looked  for  in  the  world  to 
come ;  it  may  be  labored  for  and  prepared 
on  behalf  of  mture  generations  when  the  world 
shall  be  better  than  it  is  now.  These  statements 
are  very  general.  A  Christian  would  refuse  to 
have  these  sources  of  happiness  separated ;  he 
would  insist  on  blending  them,  instead  of  rely- 
ing upon  any  one  of  them  by  itself.  But  the 
pessimist  is  quite  right  in  saying  that,  if  there 

^   "  Arcino  c  tutto 
Fuor  che  i!  nostro  dolor." 
2  "  Nostra  vita  a  che  val!     Sulo  a  sprcgiarla  "     , 


iiiii 

III! 
lilif 

■  t': 


111:1 


II 


190 


WITNESSES   TO   C/fRIST. 


is  no  reality  in  the  happiness  promised  by  any 
one  of  these  ways,  then  the  hope  of  happiness  is 
a  delusion. 

Lcopardi  sets  to  work  to  show  that  none  of 
these  ways  of  happiness  has  any  reality.  (O  As 
regards  the  present,  he  says  he  has  tried  it  and 
found  it  empty.  The  last  illusion  is  gone,  he 
says.  Hope  has  left  him  ;  even  desire  is  stilled. 
"  And  now,"  he  says  to  his  heart,  "  be  at  rest 
forever;  thou  hast  palpitated  long  enough. 
Nothing  here  is  worthy  of  thy  throbbings ;  this 
world  deserves  no  sigh."  It  is  the  language  of 
utter  failure,  disappointment,  despair. 

But  perhaps  (2)  the  future  of  humanity  on 
earth  may  offer  something  better.  There  is  a 
present  joy  in  toiling  for  a  future  good.  The 
noble  heart  bears  its  own  pain  and  grief  willingly 
when  it  thinks  of  the  glorious  future  which  it  is 
helping  to  work  out  for  the  race  to  which  it 
belongs.  But  even  this,  he  says,  is  an  illusion. 
If  man's  existence  was  ever  tolerable,  it  was 
when  he  was  as  the  beast  that  perishes.  What 
we  call  progress  is  only  increase  of  misery.  He 
that  increascth  what  is  called  knowledge  only 
increaseth  sorrow.  Culture  has  only  added  to 
our  wretchedness  by  making  us  acquainted  with 
the  hopelessness  of  our  condition.  The  best 
thing  that  could  have  happened  would  have 
been  that  we  should  not  exist  at  all ;  the  next 
best  thing  is  that  we  should  cease  to  exist. 

But  (3)  there  is  a  third  way.     There  may  be 


31  'I 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF   THE  AGE. 


191 


happiness  in  a  future  world,  and  men  may  bear 
much  here  for  the  sake  of  the  eternal  glory  into 
which  they  shall  enter  hereafter.  To  this  the 
Pessimist  can  only  reply  that  there  is  no  here- 
after. Yet  he  is  not  quite  sure  of  this.  But  at 
least  he  recognizes  no  duty  to  the  future.  Self- 1 
destruction  he  holds  to  be  perfectly  lawful,  i 
Once  or  twice  he  was  on  the  point  of  commit- 
ting suicide,  but  his  regard  for  others  pre- 
vented him  from  inflicting  additional  suffering 
upon  them.  Besides,  he  was  otherwise  incon- 
sistent in  shrinking  at  the  prospect  of  death. 
He  fled  to  escape  the  approach  of  cholera ;  so 
that  existence  did  not  then  appear  to  him  as 
an  unmitigated  evil. 

The  moral  of  this  terrible  system  is  not  far  to 
seek,  and  we  shall  have  presently  to  indicate  it 
more  distinctly.  We  must  now,  ^^owever,  pass 
from  Leopardi  to  a  name  much  better  known 
and  of  far  wider  and  deeper  influence,  —  that  of 
the  German,  Arthur  Schopenhauer. 

As  far  as  regards  their  general  view  of  human 
life,  the  system  of  Schopenhauer  and  of  his 
greatest  disciple  and  successor,  Hartmann,  is 
substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Leopardi.  In 
their  view  also,  existence  is  an  evil ;  life  is  not 
worth  living ;  those  who  assist  in  propagating 
the  species  are  the  greatest  enemies  of  their 
kind.  The  best  thing  that  could  be  done  for  it, 
the  most  merciful,  the  kindest  thing,  would  be 
to  extinguish  the  whole  race,  not  by  a  universal 


1 


ill 


il 


Sill 


:r  HI! 


II.  t 


ii.Ji 
.1,  iJ.i 

I  I-, 

li  );, 
.1   I,'"' 

it 


liil 


I  m\ 


0>h, 


m 


,(1    t! 

Sill' 

f 

i-*'! 

"4j 

_ ^ 

192 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


suicide,  which  would  seem  to  be  the  speediest 
mode  of  escape,  but  by  a  voluntary  asceticism, 
deliberately  chosen  from  the  settled  conviction 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  world  that  a  man 
ought  to  care  for,  and  therefore  the  highest  wis- 
dom is  pure  indifference  and  absolute  insensi- 
bility. It  is,  as  we  have  said,  Buddhism  over 
again.  The  highest  perfection  is  Nirvdna,  — 
the  destruction  of  thought,  desire,  feeling,  con- 
scious being. 

In  this  respect  the  Italian  poet  and  the  Ger- 
man philosophers  are  in  complete  agreement. 
The  difference  between  them  lies  in  this,  that 
Leopardi's  opinions  were  the  outcome  of  his 
own  temperament  and  circumstances,  and  his 
illustration  of  them  was  drawn  chiefly  from  the 
obvious  facts  of  experience,  while  Schopenhauer 
and  Hartmann  have  endeavored  to  elaborate  a 
philosophical  system.  With  these  systems  we 
shall  here  deal  no  further  than  our  subject  de- 
mands. Most  of  us  probably  will  be  willing  to 
confess  that  we  do  not  understand  them  and 
never  shall.  But  there  is  no  special  difficulty  in 
making  out  their  theory  of  pessimism. 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  great 
Leibnitz  was  an  optimist,  perhaps  an  extreme 
optimist;  and  optimism  was  the  prevailing  the- 
ory in  Germany  during  the  last  century  and 
at  the  beginning  of  the  present.  Before  the 
time  of  Schopenhauer  there  had,  it  is  true,  been 
some  scattered  utterances  showing  some  trees 


THE  FESSIMISM  OF  THE  ACE. 


193 


of  a  darker  tendency.  Fichtc,  for  example,  bad 
said  that  tlie  actual  world  was  the  worst  of  all 
possible  worlds;  but  this  did  not  represent,  as 
in  the  case  of  Schopenhauer,  his  deliberate 
judgment-  Schelling  had  declared  that  sorrow 
and  sufferini;  were  necessary  elements  in  human 
life;  and  expressions  of  a  similar  character  may 
be  found  in   Kant  and  his  successors. 

liut  the  kind  of  pessimism,  if  it  may  be  so 
called,  which  was  countenanced  by  these  writers, 
had  very  little  affmity  with  the  systems  we  are 
now  considcrinL^,  and  hardly  went  furtlier  than 
many  Christians  are  inclined  to  '^o.  There  are 
many  believers  in  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
who  regard  this  world  as  a  mere  vale  of  tears, 
full  of  sorrow  and  suffering  and  weeping  and 
lamentation.  There  arc  many  who  think  it  is 
going  from  bad  to  worse  day  after  da}',  and  that 
all  prospect  of  improving  is  so  much  worse  than 
uncertain  that  any  effort  in  that  direction  is 
wasted  labor.  But  such  persons,  be  they  right 
or  wrong,  are  not  pessimists  in  the  present  sense 
of  the  word.  They  believe  that  there  is  a  bet- 
ter life  in  a  perfect  world  beyond  the  present; 
they  believe  tliat  all  things  are  working  together 
for  good,  and  that,  whatever  the  end  may  be,  it 
will  result  in  the  promotion  of  the  glory  of  God, 
in  the  manifestation  of  His  infinite  and  eternal 
perfections.  Such  a  belief,  whatever  form  it 
may  take,  is  obviously  a  species  of  optimism. 

The  pessimism  of  Schopenhauer  is  absolute 

n 


'ri 


194 


ly/TNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


\\.  I 


■A.   1,'" 


irlt 


and  deadly,  and  it  is  carefully  reasoned.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  all  suffering  and  all  evil  is  from 
the  Will.  By  the  will  he  means  something 
widely  different  from  that  self-determining  fac- 
ulty in  man  which  is  generally  recognized  as  the 
basis  of  his  responsibility.  He  means  almost 
exactly  what  scientific  men  mean  by  the  word 
Force ;  for,  according  to  him,  the  principle  of 
will  h  a  blind  and  unconscious  desire  of  life, — 
a  desire  which  arises  in  some  inexplicable  man- 
ner, and  determines  the  character  of  all  kinds 
of  being,  through  all  the  various  stages  of 
existence. 

This  blind  force,  or  will,  develops  itself  first  in 
inorganic  Nature,  then  in  the  vegetable  world, 
next  in  the  animal  world,  and  finally  it  arrives 
at  consciousness  in  man.  And  thus  it  becomes 
the  principle  of  suffering  and  misery.  Evil  had 
existed  before,  but  it  was  felt  rather  than  known. 
It  is  in  man  that  a  full  consciousness  of  suffering 
is  realized.  To  him,  above  all  other  creatures, 
life  involves  effort,  and  effort  is  suffering.  He 
cannot  help  putting  forth  these  efforts;  neces- 
sity constrains  him  to  do  it.  But  the  need  is 
not  perfectly  satisfied  ;  and  even  when  it  seems 
to  be  so,  the  satisfaction  is  an  illusion,  and  leads 
to  new  needs  and  new  sorrows.  "  The  life  of 
man,"  as  he  puts  it,  "  is  but  a  struggle  for  ex- 
istence, with  the  certainty  of  being  vanquished." 
Hence  he  draws  these  two  conclusions  :  (i)  That 
all  pleasure  is  negative,  and  suffering  alone  is 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


195 


I    IS 


positive ;  (2)  That  the  more  human  intelligence 
increases,  the  more  is  man  sensible  to  suffering; 
in  other  words,  that  what  is  called  i)rogress  is  but 
the  sure  means  of  increasing  human  misery. 

From  all  this  there  can  be  but  one  inference ; 
namely,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man,  if 
any  such  thing  as  duty  can  any  longer  be  as- 
sumed, to  devise  means  for  the  extinction  of 
that  existence  whose  only  positive  possession 
is  suffering,  and  whose  advancement  in  all  that 
constitutes  what  we  call  culture  and  civiliza- 
tion can  mean  only  an  increase  of  hopeless 
wretchedness. 

What  arc  we  to  think  of  this  system?  Whence 
docs  it  come?  To  what  will  it  lead?  How 
arc  we  to  deal  with  it?  These  are  questions 
which  we  cannot  afford  to  neglect.  Pessimism 
has,  up  to  the  present  time,  obtained  no  solid 
footing  in  ICngland  or  America;  but  it  has  be-  \ 
come  a  raging  epidemic  in  Germany,  and  from 
thence  it  is  spreading  to  France  and  Italy,  and 
indeed  there  are  not  wanting  signs  that  it  has 
infected  many  among  ourselves.  I 

II.  What  are  we  to  think  of  pessimism  as 
regards  the  truth  of  its  main  principles?  Is  it 
true  that  effort  produces  misery  only,  or  chiefly? 
Is  it  true  that  our  misery  is  something  positive, 
while  our  pleasure  is  merely  negative?  Does 
the  progress  of  the  species  mean  essentially 
the  increase  of  misery?  These  are  primary 
questions. 


: 


I 


<"K 


iiiiij 

|.    I:. 


•Pitt: 


|l!lf 


'"■  ! 
"i: 

Ml:,, 
'1*1 


III 

Mill 


196 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


I.  In  the  first  place,  wc  admit  that  life  involves 
the  putting  forth  of  force,  cncrj^y,  will ;  and  that 
life  like  ours  involves  conscious  effort.  This  is 
perfectly  clear,  But  is  it  so  clear  that  effort 
brings  in  its  train  nothing  but  suffering,  or  that 
the  pleasure  which  accompanies  it  is  merely 
negative?  This  is  a  question  which  appeals  to 
human  experience,  and  which  can  be  answered 
in  no  other  way.  Wc  have  no  hesitation  in 
affirming  that  the  testimony  of  experience  is 
precisely  the  reverse  of  what  the  pessimist 
affirms.  Experience  tells  us  that  effort  is  a 
pleasure,  a  joy. 

Make  what  deductions  you  please,  in  the  ob- 
stacles which  we  encounter  while  we  seek  to 
reach  our  ends,  in  the  difficulty  of  triumphing 
over  those  obstacles,  in  the  fatigue  which  results 
from  the  efforts  which  are  made;  these  deduc- 
tions will  never  serve  to  neutralize  the  pleasure 
of  effort,  the  joy  of  the  struggle,  to  the  worker, 
the  combatant,  the  athlete.  Nay,  in  those  very 
difficulties  he  finds  a  new  source  of  joy  and 
delight.  At  the  presence  of  obstacles  his  spirit 
is  stirred  and  braced  for  the  encounter;  in  the 
most  strenuous  endeavors  to  succeed  there  may 
indeed  be  pain,  but  there  mingles  with  it  the 
keenest  pleasure ;  and  as  regards  the  fatigue 
resulting  from  efifoit,  who  is  there  that  has  really 
known  the  sweetness  of  rest  and  repose  without 
having  first  experienced  the  pain  of  toil  and  the 
sense  of  weariness  and  fatigue? 


I  3 


i 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


197 


Nor  do  these  elements  of  pleasure  complete 
the  circle.  The  laborer  is  urf^ed  on  by  the 
prospect  of  success.  The  joy  which  is  set  be- 
fore him  enables  him  to  make  light  of  the  pain 
which  he  cnclures;  and  he  is  even  more  nobly 
sustained  by  the  sense  of  duty,  which  adds 
the  approval  of  conscience  as  the  best  and 
highest  element  in  the  satisfaction  which  he 
experiences. 

This  is  not  a  question  which  can  be  settled  by 
speculation  ;  it  is  a  sitn[)le  question  of  experi- 
ence, and  we  may  appeal  not  only  to  the  litera- 
ture of  all  ages,  but  to  the  life  of  all  ages. 
Effort  is  not  always  produced  by  sheer  neces- 
sity; it  is  itself  an  instinctive  product  of  life; 
it  is  put  forth  out  of  an  inward  necessity,  and 
it  is  the  source  of  true  enjoyment  to  man. 
Here  wc  arc  touching  the  very  foundation  of 
the  subject.  If  the  system  is  wrong  here,  it  is 
radically  wrong,  and  no  correctness  in  details 
can  justify  it  as  a  system.  Let  us,  however, 
pass  on  to  the  subordinate  principles  of  the 
theory. 

2.  According  to  Schopenhauer,  pleasure,  where 
it  exists,  is  only  negative ;  pain  alone  is  positive. 
A  state  of  pain  is,  in  fact,  man's  normal  condi- 
tion ;  and  pleasure  is  but  the  momentary  ces- 
sation of  pain,  the  suspension  of  the  suffering 
which  is  the  habitual  attendant  of  existence. 
Effort,  suffering,  death,  —  this  is  the  positive 
history  of  mankind. 


I 

i 


iiiiy 


1'  'Vtf 


It 


nil 


III!"* 
11  III 

Ihiil: 


11 


i;l 


i;l 


198 


WITNISSES   TO  CHRIST. 


It  ought  to  be  noticed  that  Hartmann  here 
dissents  from  his  master.  He  points  out,  in 
fact,  that  Schopenhauer  makes  as  great  a  mistake 
on  the  one  side  as  Leibnitz  had  done  on  the 
other.  According  to  Leibnitz,  pain  was  a  mere 
negation  of  pleasure,  which  alone  was  positive. 
This  was  an  evident  paradox.  If  human  con- 
sciousness is  worth  anything,  —  if  it  be  worth 
nothing,  it  is  of  no  use  discussing  these  or  any 
other  questions. of  the  same  kind,  —  if  human 
consciousness  is  vvor«-h  anything,  then  pain  is 
often  something  very  positive,  and  not  a  mere 
negation  of  pleasure. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  Schopenhauer  equally 
contradicted  conscious  experience  when  he  re- 
fused a  positive  character  to  pleasure.  There 
are  undoubtedly  pleasures  which  are,  in  a  sense, 
negative.  There  are  pleasures  of  which  we  may 
be  said  to  be  habitually  unconscious,  of  the  ex- 
istence of  which  we  are  made  aware  only  when 
we  are  subjected  to  pain  more  or  less  acute.  It 
is  when  that  pain  obtains  alleviation  that  the 
negative  pleasure  becomes  for  a  moment,  as  it 
were,  positive,  and  we  are  made  fully  conscious 
of  the  privilege  which  in  that  respect  we  en- 
joyed. But  it  is  equally  certain  that  there  are 
pleasures  which  are  obviously  and  undoubtedly 
positive,  which  are  not  mere  intervals  between 
attacks  of  pain,  —  pleasures  which  may  vanish 
without  any  consciousness  of  evil  or  pain  com- 
ing in  their  place.     If  these  are  not  positive,  we 


81  'lis 


'*»-,. 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


199 


confess  \vc  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  The  determination  of  this  question,  when 
it  is  once  clearly  stated,  may  safely  be  left  to 
the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

3.  One  other  point  of  detail  remains,  —  namely, 
the  assertion  that  life  is  a  misery  and  an  evil  in 
proportion  to  its  development  and  elevation. 
This  notion  is  a  natural  inference  from  the  the- 
ory that  life  in  itself  is  an  evil.  If  so,  then, 
of  course,  the  more  abundant  the  life,  the 
greater  the  evil  of  existence.  Pain  begins  with 
sensation,  —  it  may  be  difficult  to  say  where, 
because  it  is  difficult  to  detect  the  first  traces 
of  sensation ;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that,  as 
organization  becomes  more  perfect  and  more 
refined,  the  organized  being  becomes  more  in- 
tensely conscious  of  pain,  more  keenly  alive  to 
every  cause  by  which  pain  may  be  produced. 

Here  at  least,  then,  the  pessimist  is,  super- 
ficially at  least,  in  the  right.  Man  suffers  far 
more  acutely  than  the  mere  animal.  Shake-  j 
speare,  if  we  may  venture  thus  to  speak  of  one  • 
so  great,  was  clearly  mistaken  when  he  said  that 
the  harmless  beetle  that  we  tread  upon  feels  a 
pang  as  great  as  when  a  giant  dies.  And  it  is 
not  merely  that  man's  sensations  are  far  keener 
than  those  of  the  mere  animal :  he  has  sources  of 
suffering  to  which  the  brute  creation  are  stran- 
gers, lie  feels  at  the  moment  more  keenly  than 
the  animal;  but,  as  has  been  well  said,  "  he  eter- 
nizes pain  by  memory,  he  anticipates  it  by  his 


11 


200 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


foresight,  he  multiplies  it  incalculably  by  his 
imagination :  he  docs  not,  like  the  animal,  suffer 
only  in  the  present;  he  torments  himself  by  the 
past  and  future,  to  say  nothing  of  that  vast  con- 
tingent of  moral  pains  of  which  the  animal  has 
no  experience."  ^ 

To  this  extent,  of  course,  the  pessimist  is 
right.  Man  does  suffer  in  many  ways  that  do 
not  touch  the  mere  animal.  And  if  pessimism 
had  gone  no  further,  we  should  here  have  had 
no  controversy  with  it.  The  differences  even 
between  man  and  man,  in  respect  of  sensibility, 
are  astonishing.  In  the  lower  types  of  human- 
ity men  will  bear  injuries  to  the  body  which 
would  positively  madden  those  who  belong  to 
the  higher  types.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  there  is 
the  closest  connection  between  man's  sensitive- 
ness to  pain  and  his  intellectual  development. 

Must  we  then,  in  asserting  these  facts,  admit 
the  inferences  which  are  deduced  from  them  by 
pessimists?  Are  we  bound  to  say,  that,  because 
increased  intelligence  is  associated  with  a  finer 
organization  and  therefore  with  increased  lia- 
bility  to    suffering,   therefore  intelligence  is  an 


<i*ii. 


1  This  tliought  is  finely  expressed  by  Burns  in  his  "Address 
to  a  Mouse  :  "  — 

"  Still  thou  art  hlest  compared  wi'  mc  I 
The  present  only  toucheth  thcc  : 
But,  oh  I  I  backward  cast  my  e'e 

On  prospects  drear  I 
An'  forward,  tho'  I  canna  see 

I  guess  an'  fear !  " 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


:oi 


evil  and  nothing  else;  that  the  lower  a  man  is 
in  the  scale  of  civilization,  the  happier,  or  rather 
the  less  miserable,  he  is  ;  that  the  ordinary  com- 
monplace man  is  happier  than  the  man  of 
genius,  tlie  animal  than  the  man,  the  lowest 
type  of  animal  than  the  highest,  —  in  short,  that 
the  state  of  insensibility  and  unconsciousness  is 
the  best  of  all?  As  Ilartmann  puts  it,  "  Let  us 
think  of  the  happiness  in  which  we  see  an  ox  or 
pig  living,  or  of  the  happiness  of  the  proverbial 
fish  in  the  water!  Still  more  enviable  than  the 
life  of  the  fish  must  be  that  of  the  oyster,  and 
better  still  the  life  of  the  plant.  We  go  down, 
in  fact,  below  consciousness,  and  individual  suf- 
fering disappears  with  it." 

Such  is  the  logical  conclusion  of  pessimism  as 
expressed  by  Hartmann ;  but  it  is  also  the  Re- 
dnctio  ad  ahsiirduui  of  the  system.  There  is,  in 
fact,  no  difficulty  in  fi.rnishing  an  answer  to  it 
when  it  is  presented  to  us  in  this  form.  It  is 
the  answer  that  sptings  instinctively  to  every 
man's  lips,  which  bids  him  protest  that  it  is 
better  to  bo  a  man  than  a  brute.  It  is,  indeed, 
difficult  for  us  to  estimate  the  relative  value  of 
different  kinds  of  pleasure ;  yet  we  know  that 
the  higher  pleasures  have  a  value  altogether  in- 
commensurable with  the  lower.  We  do  not  place 
them  side  by  side  for  the  sake  of  comparison, 
for  there  is  no  possibility  of  comparison  betw^een 
thetn. 

"  I    suppose,"  says  M.  Caro,  "  that   Newton, 


:5iKi 


iiiii|„jj 


202 


iVITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


ill 


when  he  found  the  exact  formula  of  the  law  of 
attraction,  condensed  into  a  single  moment  more 
of  joy  than  all  the  gourmands  of  London  can 
taste  in  the  course  of  a  "hole  year  in  their  tav- 
erns, with  their  venison  pasties  and  their  pots  of 
ale.  Pascal  was  a  sufferer  throughout  the  whole 
of  the  thirty-nine  years  during  which  his  life 
lasted.  Can  it  be  imagined  that  the  clear  view 
which  he  first  obtained  of  the  two  infinites,  which 
no  one  until  then  had  grasped  so  firmly,  in  their 
mysterious  analogy  and  in  their  contrast,  —  can  it 
be  imagined  that  such  a  view  did  not  fill  this 
great  mind  with  a  happiness  proportioned  to  its 
greatness,  with  a  joy  whose  intoxication  sur- 
passed all  vulgar  joys,  and  which  for  a  mo- 
ment suspended  all  his  sufferings?  Who  would 
not  rather  be  Shakespeare  than  Falstaff  ?  Who 
would  not  rather  be  Molicre  than  the  Bourgeois 
Gcntilhom-.iie,  —  that  combination  of  wealth  and 
stupidity?" 

Nor  does  instinct  deceive  us  in  this  preference. 
Reason  is  unhesitatingly  on  the  same  side.  It 
tells  us,  with  a  force  which  leaves  no  doubt  in  our 
minds,  that  it  is  better  to  be  a  man  than  to  be  a 
hog,  because  man  thinks ;  and  thought,  which  is 
the  source  of  much  suffering,  is  also  the  source 
of  purer  and  higher  joys  than  any  which  are 
derived  from  sense.  The  supreme  misery  is  not 
to  be  a  man,  but,  being  a  man,  so  to  despise 
one's  nature  as  to  regret  that  one  is  not  a  mere 
animal.     It  is   possible  that  such  regrets  may 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  ACE. 


203 


exist.  There  are  many  whose  only  ideas  of 
happiness  are  connected  with  the  gratification 
of  the  senses,  who  are  never  satisfied  except 
when  indulging  those  appetites  which  they  pos- 
sess in  common  with  the  brutes.  It  is  natural 
that  such  men  should  think  the  life  of  the  mere 
animal  the  best.  It  is  natural  that  they  should 
despise  that  higher  nature  of  intelligence  and 
moral  consciousness  which,  even  in  the  most 
degraded,  will  sometimes  interrupt  what  they 
call  their  enjoyments.  But  they  will  find  it 
difficult  to  convince  the  mass  of  their  fellow- 
men  that  they  are  right.  Even  those  who 
are  not  keenly  alive  to  the  highest  exercises 
of  the  intellect,  the  heart,  the  spirit  which  is 
akin  to  the  Divinity,  will  hesitate  to  sacrifice  the 
purer  joys  of  friendship,  affection,  social  inter- 
course, for  the  sake  of  wallowing  in  the  sty  of 
the  sensualist.  When  this  inevitable  result  of 
pessimism  is  once  clearly  understood,  humanity 
will  rise  against  it.  The  old  assertion  of  innate 
human  dignity  will  be  put  forth  :  "  Homo  sum  " 
(I  am  a  man) ;  and  man  is  higher  and  better 
than  the  brute  that  perishes. 

To  this  protest  of  man's  instincts,  reason,  con- 
science, what  has  pessimism  to  reply?  It  can 
only  say  that  men  deceive  themselves  ;  that  this 
notion  of  their  superiority  and  of  the  happiness 
resulting  from  it  is  a  mere  illusion.  You  are 
not  the  happier,  you  are  not  the  better,  for  these 
imagined  transports  of  the  intellect,  the  imagi- 


204 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


8        I 


nation,  the  heart;  it  is  a  mere  self-deception. 
You  arc  the  slave  of  some  blind  force  which  is 
leading  you  onward,  only  to  leave  you  at  last, 
freed  from  your  delusions,  sunk  in  a  deeper 
misery. 

There  is,  in  fact,  no  other  escape  for  pessi- 
mism. And  yet  what  is  this  but  a  pure  beg- 
ging of  the  question?  To  conduct  an  argument 
proving  the  utter  misery  of  mankind,  and  then 
to  deny  the  testimony  of  human  consciousness, 
is  not  to  prove  that  the  life  of  man  upon  earth  is 
a  life  of  wretchedness,  but  only  that  it  ought  to 
be.  And  here  the  system  falls  to  the  ground; 
its  proofs  are  utterly  inadequate  to  support  its 
conclusions.  For  the  question  is  not  as  to  the 
existence  of  pain,  sorrow,  and  suffering  on  (  arth, 
nor  even  as  to  the  proportion  which  these  bear 
in  the  life  of  man,  collective  or  individual, — 
for  these  are  questions  not  easily  solved.  The 
question  is  as  to  the  utter  badness,  misery,  and 
hopelessness  of  man's  life  as  it  is ;  and  we  re- 
peat that  this  is  not  in  any  way  proved.  Men 
still  believe  that  existence  is  better  than  annihi- 
lation, that  the  existence  of  man  is  better  than 
that  of  the  brute. 

If  the  pessimist  persists  in  disbelieving  this, 
we  ask  for  the  source  of  his  convictions  and  he 
gives  us  only  human  experience ;  and  there  can  be 
no  other  court  of  appeal.  A  man  can  be  called 
unhappy  only  because  he  feels  himself  to  be  so. 
A  man  cannot  be  said  to  be  in  pain  unless  he  is 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


205 


conscious  of  it.  The  foundation,  therefore,  of 
the  pessimist  argument  is  laid  in  that  very 
consciousness  which  he  rejects  when  it  is  against 
him.  How  easy  it  is  to  turn  the  rejection  of  this 
testimony  against  the  pessimist  himself!  You 
say  that  man  is  miserable  ;  but  we  do  not  believe 
it.  We  say,  on  the  contrary,  that  man  is  happy. 
Granting  that  there  is  much  of  suffering  and  of 
pain,  we  yet  find  so  much  to  counterbalance  all 
this,  that  we  are  inclined  to  say,  with  Paley,  "  It 
is  a  happy  world,  after  all !  " 

But  we  may  go  further:  wc  also  may  deny 
the  testimony  of  consciousness  to  human  misery. 
You  say  you  are  unhappy,  but  wc  do  not  believe 
it.  It  is  a  mere  illusion  of  your  imagination. 
These  sorrows  of  yours  are  unreal ;  these  suffer- 
ings are  imaginary,  the  creation  of  a  bewildered 
fancy.  Who  shall  say  that  this  retort  is  invalid? 
It  is  at  least  as  good  as  the  denial  of  the  testi- 
mony of  consciousness  to  human  worth  and  dig- 
nity. Nay,  it  is  better;  for  there  arc  few  who 
can  look  back  upon  their  past  experience,  and 
say  that  there  was  no  good  reason  for  their  hap- 
piness and  their  joy;  but  there  are  multitudes 
who  can  recall  troubles  of  their  own  making, 
fears  which  had  their  origin  simply  in  a  morbid 
state  of  mind,  presentiments  of  whose  origin  no 
reasonable  account  could  be  given,  and  which 
had  no  fulfilment  in  the  future. 

We  return,  therefore,  to  our  assertion  that 
man's   consciousness   must    be   accepted    as   a 


'  "h.J 


206 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


credible  witness,  and  that  we  possess,  as  an 
indestructible  fact  of  consciousness,  the  convic- 
tion that  our  life  on  earth  is  great,  good,  and 
blessed,  not  in  proportion  as  life  fades  and  loses 
its  energy  and  sinks  into  unconsciousness  and 
annihilation,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  it  rises  in 
energy  and  power,  as  it  becomes  freer  from  the 
influences  from  beneath  and  more  open  to  those 
which  are  from  above,  as  it  becomes  less  animal 
and  more  spiritual,  as  it  partakes  less  of  earth 
and  more  of  heaven,  as  it  grows  less  and  less 
like  the  life  of  the  brute  and  more  and  more 
like  the  life  of  God. 

But  there  is  another  consideration  which  ought 
not  to  be  passed  over.  Whatever  man's  earthly 
life  may  be,  it  is  not  final.  We  believe  that  we 
are  here  in  a  state  of  discipline  for  a  better  life 
beyond.  This  is  not  the  end  ;  it  is  but  the  way. 
This  is  not  the  goal ;  it  is  but  the  course.  To 
judge  of  man's  whole  life,  to  estimate  the  whole 
worth  and  importance  of  his  existence  by  the 
part  which  is  now  before  us,  is  like  judging  of  a 
man's  whole  history  on  earth  by  his  days  at 
school.  If  there  be  a  future  for  man,  if  there 
be  a  life  of  manhood  beyond  the  present,  for 
which  tlie  present  is  only  a  childhood  of  prepa- 
ration, then  no  estimate  of  man's  life  can  pre- 
tend to  completeness  which  does  not  take 
account  of  that  future  existence. 

III.  It  is  a  matter  of  the  greatest  interest  to 
account  for  the  origin  and  sources  of  this  move- 


Tim  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


207 


mcnt ;  and  various  attempts  have  been  made  to 
explain  its  existence  and  its  diffusion  and  influ- 
ence, especially  in  Germany. 

Looking  at  the  individual  aspect  of  the  sub- 
ject, we  see  clcarl/  that  pessimism  is  often  the 
result  of  temperament  and  constitution.  Some 
men  arc  naturally  cheerful,  and  others  naturally 
gloomy.  Some  anticipate  evils ;  others  never 
care  to  think  of  them  until  they  are  called  upon 
to  face  them.  Some  are  easily  satisfied  ;  others 
are  morbidly  discontented.  We  can  in  this  way 
explain  exceptional  and  individual  cases  of  pes- 
simism; but  such  solutions  do  not  touch  the 
question  in  its  wider  aspects. 

Some  have  attempted  to  explain  the  malady, 
as  it  is  truly  called,  by  the  manner  of  life  preva- 
lent among  the  people  whom  it  has  most  deeply 
infected.  According  to  their  explanation,  the 
reasons  of  pessimism  are  chiefly  chemical.  Peo- 
ple who  drink  beer  and  other  heavy  liquors,  they 
say,  are  generally  pessimists;  those  who  drink 
light  wines  arc  optimists.  This  is  the  reason, 
says  an  illustrious  French  chemist,  why  pessi- 
mism has  its  home  in  Germany.  "  There  is  no 
fear,"  he  says,  **  of  its  ever  becoming  acclima- 
tized in  the  lands  of  the  vine,  nor,  above  all,  in 
France;  the  wine  of  Bordeaux  clears  men's 
ideas,  and  the  wine  of  Burgundy  puts  the  night- 
mare to  flight." 

Such  an  explanation,  like  the  other,  may  con- 
tain a  measure  of  truth.     But  its  scope  is  too  lim- 


1 
I 


III 


208 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST 


E<)*'iJ 


itcd  :  it  docs  not  explain  the  facts  with  which  we 
have  now  to  deal ;  it  does  not  set  aside  the  diffi- 
culty by  which  we  are  now  confronted.  There 
have  always  been  these  differences  of  men  and 
manners.  Germans  have  drunk  beer  and  I'rench- 
men  have  drunk  light  wines  for  centuries;  but 
this  does  not  tell  us  why  in  this  present  century 
the  disease  of  pessimism  has  broken  out  in  Ger- 
many, and  has  spread  among  the  thinkers  of 
that  land,  and  is  now  invading  every  civilized 
country,  so  that  its  influence  may  be  extensively 
traced  in  the  contemporaneous  literature  of  every 
European  people  and  in  America.  We  have 
mentioned  England,  France,  and  Italy.  It  is 
said  that  it  has  also  spread  far  and  wide  in 
Russia:  its  presence  is  seen  in  Nihilism;  and 
it  has  appeared  among  the  Slavonian  races  in 
general. 

For  this  new  and   striking   phenomenon  we 
must  seek  out  a  specific  cause ;    and  it  is  to  be 
'^., found  partly  in  the  history  of  the  German  na- 
"n^  tion,  and  partly  in  the  state  of  religious  belief. 
With    respect    to   the   former   of    these   two 
causes,  that  which   is   found   in  the   history  of 
the  German  peopl'\  the  subject  is  evidently  too 
great  and  too  intricate  to  be  disentangled  here, 
even  if  we  were  qualified  to  undertake  such  a 
work.     The  history  of  Germany  from  the  close 
of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  when  that  great  peo- 
ple were  left  little  better  than  a  mutilated  and 
dying  body,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  that 


THE  PESSIMrSM  OF  THE  AGE. 


209 


the  world  has  ever  seen ;  and  the  process  by 
which  it  has  recovered  life,  strength,  energy,  is 
full  of  instruction.  By  its  own  internal  vitality, 
by  the  wisdom  of  its  rulers,  and  the  ability  of 
its  military  chiefs,  it  has  risen  from  a  condition 
in  which  it  was  tolerated,  and  alternately  pat- 
ronized and  chastised  by  its  powerful  neij^hbors, 
to  a  condition  in  which  it  can  do  more  than  hold 
its  own  ;  and  in  this  history  the  thoughtful  stu- 
dent will  find  something  to  explain  the  strange 
course  taken  by  German  thought. 

If,  again,  the  religions  and  philosophies  and 
philosophical  tendencies  and  theories,  which 
have  alternately  emerged  into  prominence  and 
sunk  into  neglect,  are  considered,  —  the  outbursts 
of  faith  on  the  one  side,  and  of  unbelief  on  the 
other,  —  the  alternation  of  dogmatism,  religious 
and  philosophical,  with  scepticism, — we  shall 
hardly  wonder  that  men  grew  bewildered,  dizzy, 
and  hardly  knew  whether  they  stood  on  earth 
or  on  air. 

But  one  thing  at  least  comes  out  clearly,  and 
it  is  this,  —  that  the  system  of  pessimism  could 
rise  and  flourish  only  on  the  ruins  of  Christian 
belief.  Let  life  be  never  so  unsatisfying,  the 
man  who  believes  that  there  is  an  ideal  life, 
after  which  he  may  strive  and  which  he  may 
hope  to  attain,  will  not  be  altogether  intolerant 
or  impatient  of  the  real.  The  present  truly  has 
its  pains,  its  sorrows,  its  disappointments.  But 
he  who  believes  in  a  future   in  which  all  evil 

H 


■'  I 


210 


WITNESSES   TO  CITRIST. 


ii 


VP4. 

m 

I'Hi'u:. 


shall  be  put  away,  ail  wrongs  righted,  all  mis- 
doings redressed,  will  find  it  easier  to  regard  the 
present,  if  not  with  perfect  complacency,  at  least 
with  patience.  If  the  end  of  the  journey  is  rest, 
peace,  and  joy,  the  roughest  of  the  road  will  be 
trodden,  if  sometimes  with  pain,  yet  also  with 
cheerfulness,  by  him  who  believes  that,  while 
the  pain  is  momentary,  the  joy  is  everlasting. 

The  other  side  of  the  alternative  is  equally 
plain.  The  man  who  has  lost  all  faith  in  God 
and  all  hope  of  immortality,  if  he  really  thinks 
and  feels,  will  almost  inevitably  come  to  regard 
life  and  existence  as  a  very  questionable  good, 
if  not  an  unmixed  evil.  And  here,  we  fully  con- 
cede, there  is  a  certain  measure  of  truth  in  the 
pessimist's  view  of  comparative  happiness.  No 
doubt  there  are  men  who  live  a  mere  animal 
life,  destitute  of  the  finer  feelings  of  our  nature, 
little  sensitive  even  to  physical  pain,  utterly  ig- 
norant of  any  other  form  of  suffering,  who  have 
a  low  kind  of  enjoyment  which  leaves  no  place 
for  reflection.  To  them  life  is  no  evil,  and  the 
loss  of  life  nothing  to  shrink  from,  because  they 
live  —  if  indeed  we  can  say  that  they  live  —  in 
the  present,  and  enjoy  those  lower  pleasures  of 
which  they  are  capable.  Yet  even  these  may 
have  their  waking  moments,  or  dreams  of  terror 
to  break  their  sleep. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  take,  not  the  highest 
examples  of  noble  human  cultivation,  but  the 
average  man  or  woman  who  lives  in  the  midst 


^H^l 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE, 


211 


of 

ay 


of  our  social  system,  \vc  cannot  wonder  that 
those  among  us  who  liavc  lost  their  faith  in 
God  and  an  unseen  world  should  look  upon 
the  life  which  they  have  as  worthless  and  miser- 
able. What  earthly  possession  of  man  is  sure? 
What  source  of  human  happiness  is  there  that 
may  not  in  a  moment  be  dried  up? 

You  are  rich,  and  your  wealth  ministers  to 
refinement  and  every  earthly  good  for  yourself, 
and  it  is  generously  expended  for  the  good  of 
others ;  but  Fate  waves  her  cruel  rod  and  your 
riches  take  to  themselves  wings.  You  are  strong 
and  healthy,  and  glory  in  the  rich  abundance  of 
energy  and  vigor  with  which  you  arc  endowed; 
but  sickness  casts  its  baleful  eye  upon  you,  and 
you  wither  and  decay.  You  have  friends  who 
are  dear  to  you  as  life,  and  you  find  in  their 
fellowship  joys  as  intense  and  ravishing  as  they 
arc  pure  and  elevating;  but  the  angel  of  death 
strikes  at  the  best  and  dearest,  and  your  life  is 
bruised  by  the  blow  which  has  shattered  another. 
No  rank,  no  power,  no  goodness  or  gracious- 
ness,  will  protect  the  old  or  the  young  in  the 
dread  encounter. 

If  there  be  a  God  and  a  life  to  come,  we  can 
bear  these  things.  We  can  smile  through  our 
tears  as  we  see  the  guiding  Hand  which  leads  us 
through  the  wilderness.  Faith  assures  us  that 
all  is  well  done,  because  it  is  done  by  One  who 
is  wiser  and  more  loving  than  we,  and  who  will 
never  lay  upon  us  more  than  He  will  give  us 


'•  I 


% 


% 


W^f^ 


212 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


strength  to  endure.  If  we  believe  in  God,  and 
hope  for  His  glory,  then  we  cannot  be  pessi- 
mists, we  cannot  believe  that  all  is  for  the  worst ; 
we  cannot  help  believing  that  all  is  for  the  best, 
that  all  things  work  together  for  good,  and  that 
our  light  affliction,  which  is  for  a  moment,  is 
working  for  us  more  and  more  exceedingly  an 
eternal  weight  of  glory. 

But  if  none  of  these  things  be  so,  if  there  be 
no  God  and  no  hereafter,  then  we  cannot  won- 
der that  men  grow  desperate  about  life.  If  all 
is  fate  or  chance,  if  our  poor  existence  is  tossed 
about  by  blind  unconscious  forces,  of  which  we 
know  not  whence  they  come  or  whither  they 
go,  then  indeed  life  is  an  evil  and  a  misery,  a 
distraction  from  which  we  may  well  seek  to  es- 
cape. If  we  could  raise  our  eyes  to  the  blue 
vault  of  heaven,  and  believe  that  those  celes- 
tial orbs  that  roll  above  us  are  guided  by  no 
Divine  will;  if  we  could  look  down  upon  this 
green  earth,  and  think  that  it  was  the  grave  of 
our  kind,  and  that  no  blessed  vernal  season 
could  come  and  bring  back  from  their  winter 
sleep  the  bright  and  beautiful  flowers  that  had 
sunk  into  the  bosom  of  Nature, — then  we  should 
take  the  pessimist  by  the  hand,  and  welcome  him 
as  a  brother,  as  a  friend  and  benefactor  of  his 
race.  You  are  right,  we  would  say  to  him. 
These  joys  and  hopes  are  vain  illusions,  for  they 
rest  upon  the  baseless  dream  of  immortality; 
let  us  tread  them  under  foot.     These  flowers  of 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  THE  AGE. 


213 


love  and  duty  arc  but  weeds  on  this  existence- 
cursed  earth ;  let  us  tear  them  up  and  cast  them 
into  the  fire.  This  education  and  self-discipline 
at  which  we  are  laboring  with  unceasing  toil  is 
but  a  ladder  upon  which  men  are  climbing 
higher  and  higher  into  the  clouds  and  tempests 
which  overshadow  and  trouble  their  life.  Down 
with  it,  down  with  it,  even  to  the  ground ! 
Down  with  knowledge  and  wisdom,  with  vir- 
tue and  goodness,  with  love  and  truth  !  Down 
with  thought  and  feeling  and  consciousness  and 
existence;  for  they  are  evils  and  miseries! 
Down  with  the  life  of  man ;  for  the  life  of  the 
brutes  is  better !  "  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to- 
morrow we  die."  Let  us  extinguish  and  anni- 
hilate the  race  of  man,  for  existence  itself  is  an 
evil.  This  is  the  pessimist  gospel ;  and  if  there 
be  no  God,  then  there  can  be  no  other  good 
news  for  the  children  of  men. 

It  is  sometimes  urged  against  the  revelation 
of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  it  leaves  many  diffi- 
culties in  the  life  of  man  unravelled,  many  knots 
untied.  VVe  freely  admit  it ;  and  remembering 
what  human  life  is,  we  should  be  surprised  if  it 
were  otherwise.  But  this  we  can  say  fearlessly 
and  confidently,  that  there  is  no  single  fact  in 
the  history  of  mankind  which  is  not  made  easier 
of  understanding  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel. 
We  at  least  know  who  and  what  our  God  is, 
what  He  means  by  this  order  of  things  in  which 
we  live,  what  He  has  done  for  us,  what  He  is 


f 


^ 


214 


WITNESSES  TO  ci/msr. 


doing  for  us;  and  \vc  also  know  —  wc  certainly 
believe,  and  we  think  that  we  know  —  that  He 
will  bring  order  out  of  confusion,  and  good  out 
of  evil.  And  who,  besides  the  Christian,  has 
any  clear  notion  of  the  meaning  and  the  issues 
of  human  life?  What  can  the  deist  say?  To 
him  the  Creator  is  but  an  unknown  God,  and  he 
can  only  guess  as  to  His  purposes  in  fear  and 
perplexity.  He  may  hope  and  believe  that  all 
will  come  right  in  the  end,  but  he  knows  noth- 
ing of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  being  accom- 
plished. And  what  can  the  atheist  say?  He 
can  say  nothing.  He  cannot  even  assure  you 
that  there  is  not  a  God.  At  the  very  utmost  he 
is  but  an  agnostic.  He  knows  nothing,  and  he 
can  tell  nothing,  of  any  sphere  which  is  beyond 
the  realm  of  sense. 

Tell  him  that  you  are  tortured  by  doubts  and 
fears,  and  he  can  only  reply  that  he  can  neither 
remove  the  one  nor  alleviate  the  other.  Tell 
him  that  you  want  to  know  something  about  the 
future,  and  he  will  reply  that  he  cannot  help 
you ;  he  cannot  even  assure  you  that  there  will 
be  no  future.  Tell  him  that^ou  find  this  life 
poor  and  aimless  and  worthless,  unless  it  is  the 
way  to  a  better,  and  he  must  answer  that  he 
knows  of  nothing  better,  of  nothing  besides ; 
and  you  must  make  the  best  or  the  worst  of 
this  hfe  as  you  like  and  as  you  can. 

And  this  is  the  last  word  of  positivism.  It 
ends  in  this  dismal  pessimism,  whose  philosophy 


THE  PESSIMISM  OF  Till:  AGE. 


215 


is  despair,  and  whose  solace  is  annihilation.  Go 
forth  with  this  gospel  to  the  toiling,  suffering 
children  of  men,  and  what  will  it  do  for  them? 
Will  it  make  them  braver,  happier,  better  men? 
No !  it  will  only  tell  them  that  happiness  is  a 
delusion,  and  goodness  an  empty  name. 

It  is  in  presence  of  theories  like  these  that  we 
feel  more  deeply  than  ever  that,  through  what- 
ever trials  the  Church  of  Christ  may  pass,  we 
have  no  fear  for  the  Gospel  of  our  salvation. 
We  have  no  fear  for  it,  because  we  know  that 
men,  driven  by  the  cravings  of  their  hearts,  will 
still  seek  for  the  living  God,  will  rejoice  to  hear 
of  the  Word  "  made  flesh,"  of  the  Godhead  en- 
shrined in  truest,  gentlest,  most  loving  man- 
hood, upon  whose  bosom  the  weary  head  may 
lay  itself  down  in  perfect  trust  and  find  un- 
broken repose,  from  whose  cheering  voice  the 
wearied  heart  will  receive  a  new  stimulus  for  the 
battle  of  life. 

We  have  no  fear  for  it,  because  it  is  true,  — 
true  to  the  instincts  of  the  human  heart,  true  as 
meeting  the  demands  of  the  severest  criticism, 
true  as  vindicating  for  itself  an  unquestionable 
place  in  the  history  of  the  world  as  a  revelation 
from  God. 


":;* 


I  *W|fli 


LECTURE    VII. 


THE   RESURRECTION   OF  JESUS    CHRIST. 


PART   I. 


h  I, 


EXAMINATION   OF  THE  EVIDENCE   FOR   THE 
RESURRECTION. 

I.  Introductory.  —  Importance  of  the  Event.  —  The  Gospel 
founded  on  Facts.  —  Necessity  of  Revelation  for  the  Sup- 
port of  Religious  Truth.  —  2.  The  Fact  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion.—  Its  Meaning. —  3.  The  Nature  of  the  Evidence. —  No 
F^vidence  sufficient  for  those  who  disbelieve  in  the  Super- 
natural. —  The  E.xistence  of  a  Personal  God  jiostulated. — 
The  Church  exists  and  professes  to  have  the  Knowledge  of 
God  by  Revelation.  — The  13urden  of  Proof  not  entirely  with 
the  Christian.  —  Points  on  which  there  is  general  Agreement. 
—  The  Documentary  Proof.  —  Two  •^-  stions  :  (i)\Vhat 
did  the  Disciples  of  Christ  believe?  (2)  Are  we  justified  in 
believing  the  Same  .-•  —  4.  The  Evidence  of  the  Gospel  His- 
tories ;  their  Agreement  ;  their  Statements. — Objections: 
Not  seen  to  rise  j  Disagreement  as  to  the  Time,  as  to  the 
Circumstances ;  Legendary  Details.  —  Answers.  —  Final  Ver- 
dict on  Evidence.  —  5  The  Evidence  of  Saint  Paul.  — Docu- 
ments admitted.  —  Points  of  Agreement.  —  What  the  admit- 
ted Documents  assert.  —  An  independent  Testimony.  —  Its 
Value  affected  by  the  Character  of  the  Witness.  —  Ob- 
jections to  his  T^estimony. — Answers.  —  The  Value  of 
Saint  Paul's  Testimony.  —  Disingenuous  and  inconsistent 
Objection.  —  Answer. 

I.   INTRODUCTORY. 

IT  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  at  any  length  upon 
the  supreme  importance  of  a  belief  in  the 
resurrection    of  Jesus    Christ    from   the    dead. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     21 J 


This  is,  indeed,  one  of  those  great  facts  which 
form  an  essential  part  of  the  Gospel  history 
and  testimony.  An  unbeliever  could  see  that  it 
was  represented  by  Saint  Paul  "  as  above  all, 
the  culminating  point  of  Christian  doctrine,"^ 
It  is  at  once  the  top  stone  of  the  fabric  of  divine 
revelation,  and  the  greatest  of  the  miraculous 
evidences  for  the  supernatural  character  of  the 
work  of  Christ. 

The  importance  of  this  event  has  been  clearly 
perceived  by  both  sides  in  the  Christian  con- 
troversy, by  believers  and  unbelievers  alike; 
and  accordingly  every  effort  has  been  made  by 
the  adversaries  of  the  Gospel  to  destroy  the 
grounds  of  our  belief,  while  the  defenders  of 
the  Christian  faith  have  made  their  confident 
appeal  to  reason  and  to  history  in  support  of 
the  truth  of  their  Lord's  rising  again, 

"  If  the  Resurrection  really  took  place,"  says 
a  recent  assailant^  of  its  reality,  "then  Chris- 
tianity may  [rather,  must]  be  admitted  to  be 
what  it  claims  to  be,  a  direct  revelation  from 
God.  Nay,  the  Resurrection  is  not  merely  a 
voucher  for  revelation,  it  may  truly  be  said  to 
be  in  itself  a  revelation."  "  If  Christ  be  not 
risen,"  says  Saint  Paul,  "then  is  our  preaching 
vain,  and  y.ur  faith  is  also  vain."  Both  sides 
are  equally  clear  as  to  the  result  of  a  failure  to 


I 


^  Baur,  quoted  by  Macan  in  his  Hibbert  Essay  on  "  The 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,"  p.  4. 

'^  Macan,  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  6. 


''3 


218 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIS  7. 


i\  " 


ll      •!» 


j>'  '";.« 


make  good  their  own  contention.  The  unbe- 
hcvcr  freely  admits  that  he  must  neutraHze  tlie 
proof  adduced  in  support  of  the  alleged  fact  or 
become  a  believer.  The  Christian  Apostle  tells 
us  as  plainly  that,  if  the  Resurrection  cannot  be 
believed,  then  there  is  nothing  left  to  believe. 

In  this  respect  there  is  really  no  difference 
between  our  own  position  and  that  of  believers 
in  the  first  age  of  the  Church.  The  destruction 
of  this  foundation  would  be  as  dangerous  to  a 
rational  faith  now  as  ever  it  was.  It  has  in- 
deed been  maintained,  that,  while  a  belief  in  the 
Resurrection  was  necessary  in  order  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  Christian  Church,  it  may  be 
now  dispensed  with,  and  yet  our  faith  will  re- 
main unaffected.  The  first  of  these  allegations 
may  be  accepted  without  hesitation,  while  the 
second  is  most  certainly  false. 

But  for  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
the  Church  would  never  have  existed.  This  is 
too  obvious  to  be  seriously  called  in  question. 
Even  Strauss  declares  that  the  historical  im- 
portance of  the  Resurrection  is  such  that,  "  with- 
out a  belief  in  it,  a  Christian  community  would 
hardly  have  come  together."  ^  "  But,"  it  has 
'  been  urged, ^  "  now  that  it  has  come  together, 
and  existed  for  centuries,  it  might  dispense  with 
that  belief  without  forfeiting  its  existence.  The 
life  and  death  of  Christ,   His  person  and  His 

1  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu  fiir  das  deutsche  Volk,  §  97. 

2  Macan,  p.  6. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST     219 


> 


teaching,  —  these  are  what  are  of  permanent 
and  essential  importance  to  men,  and  not  a 
supposed  event  miraculously  performed  on 
Him,  and  which  is  neither  in  itself  essential  to 
His  '  method  and  secret,'  nor  represented  as 
essentially  connected  with  them  in  the  New 
Testament." 

There  are  several  statements  here  which  we 
should  be  unable  to  accept;  but  the  main  point 
on  which  we  differ  from  the  writer  is  that  which 
is  concerned  with  the  comparative  necessity  or 
usefulness  of  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  and  in  our  own  times. 
As  a  mere  argument  for  the  truth  of  the  Gospel 
story,  the  belief  of  the  Resurrection  is  not  less 
necessary,  but  more  necessary,  now  than  it  was 
then.  The  truth  of  this  assertion  wc  must  en- 
deavor to  make  good. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  first  of  all,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  representations  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  facts  of  the  Gospel  are  the  sources  of 
its  power  and  the  very  foundation  of  its  doc- 
trines. One  instance  may  suffice.  When  Saint 
Paul  was  making  known  to  the  Corinthians,  in  a 
formal  manner,  the  Gospel  which  he  preached 
to  them,  that  Gospel  which  they  had  received 
and  wherein  they  stood,  he  said:  "  I  delivered 
unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  also  I  received, 
how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to 
the  scriptures ;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and 
that  He   hath   been    raised   on    the   third    day 


u 


mrr 


220 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


II     'i 


I    ! 


fi 


according  to  the  scriptures,"  and  so  forth. ^  Now, 
the  Apostle  clearly  puts  forth  the  enunciation  of 
these  facts  as  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel ;  and 
prominent  among  them  —  for  it  is  that  fact  of 
which  he  proceeds  to  offer  copious  proof —  he 
places  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  understand  the  impor- 
tance of  historical  facts  as  the  vehicle  of  a 
Divin»j  Revelation.  Consider  only,  without  go- 
ing further,  the  elementary  truths  of  human  re- 
sponsibility, the  existence  and  the  character  of 
Almighty  God,  and  you  will  see  that  we  have 
gained  our  clearest  notions  of  these  truths  from 
the  life  and  words  and  works  and  death  and 
resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  a 
simple  truth  of  history  that  "  the  world  by  wis- 
dom knew  not  God."  The  statement  of  our 
Lord  that  the  Father  is  revealed  by  the  only- 
bcgottcn  Son  is  verified  in  the  experience  of 
the  Christian  and  the  Church.  Take  away  this 
revelation,  and  are  you  sure  that  you  can  keep 
alive  a  belief  in  those  principles  of  religion  and 
morality  which  are  connected  with  it? 

Even  if  we  were  satisfied  of  the  sufificiency 
of  what  are  called  the  permanent  principles  of 
religion  which  are  retained  by  those  who  reject 
the  supernatural  element  in  religion  (although 
how  there  can  be  a  religion  without  a  supernat- 
ural clement  it  might  puzzle  us  to  determine), 
are  we  quite  sure  that  these  beliefs  can  be  main- 

^  I  Cor.  XV.  3,  4. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    221 

taincd  without  the  support  of  revelation?  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  denied  by  most  of 
those  who  reject  revehition ;  and  the  great  mass 
of  mankind  could  retain  no  hold  upon  them 
without  this  support.  It  is  not  enough  to  tell 
men  that  certain  truths  are  self-evident,  or  that 
they  may  be  demonstrated  by  sufficient  argu- 
ments ;  they  must  be  satisfied  that  they  have 
the  authority  of  God.  When  we  can  commend 
a  truth  to  the  human  conscience  by  the  unfalter- 
ing declaration,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  then  we 
have  put  forth  a  claim  to  attention  which  is 
unique,  and,  if  well  grounded,  irresistible. 

Now,  if  there  be  any  force  in  these  considera- 
tions, it  is  clear  that  the  truth  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion is  of  far  greater  importance  to  us  than  to 
the  first  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  this  simple 
reason,  —  that  it  is  to  us  the  most  powerful  as- 
surance of  the  truth  of  His  teaching  and  work. 
In  the  days  of  Saint  Paul  there  were  many  per- 
sons alive  who  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus  in  life, 
who  had  listened  to  His  teaching,  who  had  been 
witnesses  of  His  miraculous  power,  some  at 
least  who  had  been  the  subjects  of  His  gracious 
power  to  bless.  To  such  persons  there  was  no 
doubt  of  His  Messiahship,  none  of  His  truth, 
His  wisdom,  His  power,  or  His  love.  I'A'en  if 
we  could  suppose  them  uncertain  or  ignorant 
of  the  fact  of  His  resurrection,  they  still  would 
have  no  doubt  of  His  general  character  and 
work.    With  ourselves  the  case  is  quite  different. 


222 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


M'^ 


To  us  the  Resurrection  is  not  only  the  greatest 
of  all  the  miracles  connected  with  His  mani- 
festation, but  the  surest.  In  a  certain  sense  it 
is  the  support  and  guarantee  of  all  the  other 
miracles.  If  we  doubt,  or  abandon  belief  in, 
the  truth  of  the  Resurrection,  we  shall  hardly 
retain  faith  in  any  of  the  signs  shown  by  our 
Lord,  or  even  in  the  mere  principle  of  the 
supernatural.     Let  this,  then,  be  clearly  under- 

.  stood  as  our  position.  If  we  are  forced  to  give 
up  the  Resurrection,  we  must  give  up  Chris- 
tianity as  a  revelation  from  God.  If  the  Resur- 
rection   can   be   conclusively  maintained,   then 

{  Christ  was  a  Saviour  sent  from  God. 


li  ^ 


2.  THE   FACT  OF  THE   RESURRECTION. 

Before  we  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the  evi- 
dence, we  must  ask  what  we  mean  by  the  fact 
which  we  assert,  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead.  The  faith  of  the  Church 
is  thus  stated  in  our  fourth  Article :  "  Christ  did 
truly  rise  again  from  death,  and  took  again  His 
body,  with  flesh,  bones,  and  all  things  apper- 
taining to  the  perfection  of  man's  nature."  It 
has  been  truly  said  by  one  of  the  assailants  ^  of 
the  doctrine :  "  We  have  nothing  to  do  here  with 
the  vague  modern  representation  of  these  events, 
by  means  of  which  the  objective  facts  vanish, 

^  Supernatural  Religion  (complete  English  edition  in  three 
volumes),  vol.  iii.  p.  400.     Compare  Macan.p.  27. 


THE  JiESUKKECT/OX  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     223 


and  arc  replaced  by  subjective  impressions  and 
tricks  of  consciousness,  or  symbols  of  spiritual 
life.  Those  who  adopt  such  views  have,  of 
course,  abandoned  all  that  is  real  and  super- 
natural in  the  supposed  events.  The  Resurrec- 
tion and  Ascension  which  we  have  to  deal  with 
arc  events  precisely  as  objective  and  real  as  the 
death  and  burial,  —  no  ideal  process  figured 
by  the  imagination  or  embodiments  of  Christian 
hope,  but  tangible  realities,  historical  occur- 
rences in  the  sense  of  ordinary  life.  If  Jesus, 
after  being  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  did  not 
physically  [the  word  is  ambiguous,  but  we  let  it 
pass]  rise  again  from  the  dead,  and  in  the  flesh 
[again  ambiguous],  without  again  dying,  'as- 
cend into  heaven,'  the  whole  case  falls  to  the 
ground." 

\Vc  accept,  generally,  this  statement  of  the 
question;  and  it  is  the  more  important  to  insist 
upon  the  objective  reality  of  the  occurrence, 
that  writers  and  even  preachers,^  who  profess  to 
be  Christians,  continue  to  use  language  respect- 
ing the  great  facts  of  our  Lord's  resurrection 
and  ascension  which  would  seem  to  imply  that 
they  have  no  more  than  an  ideal  value,  or  at 
least  that  this  is  the  only  aspect  of  the  matter 
which  it  is  important  to  preserve.  Such  a  no- 
tion is  a  pure  delusion,  and  a  subversion  of  what 

^  As  an  example,  we  may  mention  one  of  the  most  eloquent 
of  German  preachers,  Dr.  Schwartz,  the  Court  Chaplain  at 
Gotha. 


^A 


fill 


■*1 

"  t       18 


S:"' 


Nv". 


I      >Im 


II'    O 


224 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


vvc  mean  by  tlic  faith  of  the  Church  and  the 
rcaHty  of  the  Christian  Rcvchition.  If  Christ 
be  not  actually  and  objectively  risen,  then  our 
faith  is  vain.  We  cannot  retain  tlie  ideas,  if  \vc 
abandon  the  facts.  The  Resurrection  which  wc 
maintain  is  a  real  one.  We  entirely  agree  with 
the  writer  just  quoted,  that  "  these  incidents, 
although  stupendous  miracles,  must  also  have 
been  actual  occurrences."  If  they  did  not  really 
take  place,  our  task  is  at  an  end.  If  it  is  as- 
serted that  they  really  did  take  place,  their  oc- 
currence must  be  attested  by  adequate  evidence.^ 
Wc  acknowledge  the  reasonableness  of  this  dc- 
mand.  We  believe  that  these  occurrences  ac- 
tually took  place,  and  that  they  are  proved  by 
sufficient  evidence. 


3.  THE   NATURE   OF  THE  EVIDENCE. 

Of  what  nature  must  the  evidence  be  that  will 
satisfy  us  of  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection  ?  This 
is  our  next  question.  And  what  is  the  common 
ground  that  we  may  assume  as  a  starting-point, 
conceded  alike  by  our  opponents  and  ourselves? 

One  thing  is  quite  clear,  that  no  evidences  will 
I  suffice  for  those  who  take  it  for  granted  that  all 
miracles  are  impossible,  or  at  least  so  improb- 
able as  to  be  incredible.  And  yet  this  is  the 
starting-point  of  many  who  assail  the  truth  of 
this  and  all  the  other  miracles  of  the  Gospel. 
1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  401. 


TlJIi  RESL'RRECTIOX  01'  JESL'^i  C UK  JUT.    22$ 


They  start  with  a  perfect  certainty  tliat  no 
amount  (»f  evidence  can  ^ive  assurance  of  the 
truth  of  the  facts  which  they  profess  to  invcs 
tigate,  and  then  they  ln-iid  all  their  enerj^ics 
to  prove  that  the  evidences  adduced  are  in- 
sufficient. 

The  difference  between  ourselves  and  our  ad- 
versaries is  indeed  finulaniental.  We  believe 
in  a  personal  God,  and,  for  the  most  part,  they 
do  not.  Certainly,  if  there  is  a  (iod  who  takes 
an  interest  in  His  creatures,  it  cannot  be  thou^dit 
surprising  that  He  should  adopt  some  method 
of  making  His  will  more  perfectly  known  to 
them.  If  our  argument  were  merely  with  deists, 
such  a  suggestion  might  be  a  sufficient  intro- 
duction to  a  consideration  of  the  evidence. 
Most  of  our  opponents  will  not,  however,  allow 
us  this  starting-point.  We  must,  therefore,  meet 
them  in  another  way.  At  least  we  can  say  it  is 
not  certain  that  there  is  no  God.  There  may 
be  a  God,  and  He  may  have  made  some  super- 
natural revelation  of  Himself  to  His  creatures. 
At  any  rate,  there  has  been  for  ages  in  exist- 
ence a  society,  the  Chiistian  Church,  which 
professes  to  have  such  a  revelation,  and  to  have 
satisfactory  evidence  of  its  having  come  from 
God.  Is  it  too  much  to  ask  that  men  shall 
give  a  careful  and  candid  consideration  to  these 
evidences?  We  do  not  ask  the  inquirer  to  be 
satisfied  with  trifling  proof's ;  we  do  not  ask  him 
to  accept  sentiments  for  arguments,   or   hopes 

IS 


m 


lih 


226 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


t 


i      ! 


for  realities.  VVc  simply  ask  that  he  shall  be 
willing  to  look  fairly  at  the  evidences  which  are 
adduced  in  support  of  an  alleged  fact  of  the 
greatest  moment  in  regard  to  human  belief 

Let  us  consider  how  the  subject  presents  it- 
self to  us  in  the  history  of  mankind.  On  the 
most  superficial  view  of  the  matter  we  sec  be- 
fore us  a  long  and  deeply  interesting  history, 
the  history  of  Christianity  and  of  the  Church, 
•which,  by  the  admissioL  of  all,  has  sprung  out 
of  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  dead.  We  discern  in  this  Body,  which 
is  called  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  in  this  sys- 
tem of  teaching,  which  is  called  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  a  mighty  moral  power  which  has  pene- 
trated, leavened,  moulded  the  whole  of  human 
society  in  the  most  civilized  nations  of  the 
world  for  many  centuries.  And  w*  as':.  Hns 
this  history,  has  this  power,  taken  its  beginning 
from  a  falsehood  or  a  delusion? 

Surely,  in  such  a  case  the  whole  burden  of 
proof  is  not  with  ourselves !  Even  if  we  were 
unable  to  give  a  complete  account  of  this  vast 
system  in  which  we  find  ourselves,  men  might 
yet  hesitate  to  assail  it  and  destroy  it  as  an 
imposture.  In  such  a  case  we  may  say  with 
confidence,  apart  from  all  minute  historical  in- 
vestigations into  the  origin  of  the  Church,  the 
probability  is  not  entirely  on  the  side  of  un- 
belief. We  are  not  using  this  argument  as  a 
reason  for  being  satisfied  with  insufficient  evi- 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     22/ 


light 
s  an 
with 
il  i  li- 
the 
Un- 
as a 
evi- 


dences on  behalf  of  the  facts  of  Christianity ;  but 
we  do  urge  that  such  considerations  may  give 
some  confidence  to  the  Christian  apologist  in 
his  work,  and  induce  the  doubter  and  the  un- 
believer to  come  to  the  inquiry  with  some 
amount  of  sympathy,  or  at  least  with  a  senti- 
ment of  strict  impartiality. 

So  much  may  be  said  for  what  may  be  called 
the  principles  of  our  inquiry.  We  must  now  ap- 
proach the  facts,  —  first,  those  which  are  gener- 
ally, if  not  universally,  admitted,  and  afterwards 
those  which  we  are  required  to  prove. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  religion  and 
Church,  and  that  He  lived  in  the  age  of  the 
world  to  which  His  life  and  work  are  assigned 
by  the  Christian  creeds.  It  is  agreed  that  the 
Christian  Church  arose  at  a  period  close  to  the 
time  of  his  death,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Cae- 
sar, the  Roman  Emperor.  It  is  agreed  that  a 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  dead  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  Church 
and  its  faith. ^  When  we  further  ask  what  are 
the  grounds  of  that  belief,  —  why,  in  short,  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  should  be  accepted  as  an 
objective  fact  rather  than  as  a  legend  or  a  myth, 
like  the  beliefs  of  many  other  religions,  —  we  are 
directed  to  a  series  of  documents  which  profess 
to  be  written  by  men  who  had  themselves  seen 

^  This  is  fully  conceded  by  Strauss  and  his  followers,  and  by 
the  Tubingen  School  generally. 


1:1 


228 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


1 1  MMj 


our   Lord,   or   had  received   their   information 
from  those  who  had  been  His  companions. 

Thus  we  have  four  sets  of  memoirs  of  the  hfe 
and  teaching  of  Jesus  on  earth,  —  two  of  them 
professing  to  be  written  by  His  own  companions 
and  Apostles,  one  by  a  writer  who  is  said  to 
have  been  the  companion  of  Saint  Peter,  and 
another  by  a  writer  who  was  the  companion  of 
Saint  Paul,  and  who  says  that  he  obtained  his 
information  from  those  who  had  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  the  matters  which  he  records. 

Further,  we  have  a  set  of  epistles  written  by 
the  most  eminent  of  all  the  Apostles  of  Christ, 
who  became  a  Christian  after  His  Master's 
death.  Four  of  these  epistles  —  those  to  the 
Galatians  and  the  Romans,  and  the  two  to  the 
Corinthians  —  are  admitted  by  all  reasonable 
critics,  believers  and  unbelievers,  to  be  the  gen- 
uine productions  of  the  man  whose  name  they 
bear;  and  these  four  bear  abundant  testimony 
to  all  the  main  facts  of  the  life  and  teaching  of 
our  Lord,  so  that,  if  the  whole  early  literature 
of  the  Christian  Church  had  perished,  or  were 
}  to  be  lost  or  discredited,  we  could  reconstruct 
from  these  admittedly  genuine  documents  the 
whole  Christian  system. 

These  are  the  documents  which  we  have  now 
to  examine  with  the  view  of  discovering  what 
proofs  they  afford  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead.  And  in  doing  so  we 
naturally  ask  two  questions:   (i)  What  did  the 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    229 


by 


disciples  of  Jesus  Christ  believe  and  assert? 
and  (2)  Does  their  belief  justify  us  in  believing 
in  the  resurrection  of  their  Master?  or  is  there 
any  other  theory  more  consistent  with  the  facts 
of  the  case,  viewed  in  the  light  of  reason  and 
experience?  This  is  really  the  whole  question 
which  we  have  to  consider ;  and  we  now  proceed 
to  examine,  first,  the  testimony  of  the  Gospels, 
and  secondly,  the  testimony  of  Saint  Paul,  es- 
pecially as  it  is  contained  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

4.  THE  EVIDENCE   OF  THE    GOSPEL   HISTORIES. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  we  are  here 
concerned  with  the  Gospel  narratives  merely 
as  credible  history.  For  our  present  purpose 
we  have  no  concern  with  the  question  of  their 
inspiration,  nor  even  of  necessity  with  their 
authorship,  but  only  with  their  internal  cohe- 
rence and  consistency.  We  have  before  us  a 
series  of  historical  documents  professing,  among 
other  things,  to  give  an  account  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  of 
His  appearance  to  His  disciples  after  His  res- 
urrection; and  we  have  to  ask  whether  these 
accounts  are  contradictory  and  incredible,  or 
whether  they  present  such  variations  only  as 
might  be  expected  in  writers  giving  an  inde- 
pendent account  of  the  same  events,  each  one 
relating  those  facts  with  which  he  was  best  ac- 
quainted, in  which  he  was   most  deeply  intcr- 


m 


230 


W/TxVESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


\ 


ested,  and  which  he  regarded  as  best  adapted 
for  his  purpose. 

And  here  we  naturally  ask,  What  amount  of 
agreement  between  historians  is  necessary  in 
order  to  secure  beUef  in  their  veracity  or  accu- 
racy? What  amount  of  discrepancy,  real  or 
apparent,  is  compatible  with  the  truth  of  the 
main  facts  attested?  On  this  point  we  are  will- 
ing to  take  the  judgment  of  an  adversary. 

"  It  may  fairly  be  said,"  remarks  Mr.  Macan,^ 
"  if  various  persons  report  one  event  or  series 
of  events,  we  do  not  expect  entire  harmony  and 
agreement  in  the  details  of  their  narratives  ; 
still  less  should  we  form  such  expectations  in 
the  case  of  supernatural  events,  supposing  the 
latter  to  have  really  occurred.  .  .  .  One  of  the 
grounds  of  belief  or  disbelief,"  he  goes  on,  "  is 
the  agreement  or  disagreement  of  various  wit- 
nesses with  each  other  and  with  themselves  ; 
a  certain  amount  of  disagreement  and  inconsis- 
tency may  not  invalidate  their  testimony,  may 
even  allay  the  suspicion  of  possible  fraud  or 
collusion:  but  there  is  some  limit  to  be  ob- 
served in  this  matter;  there  is  a  point  where 
divergence  becomes  as  suspicious  as  complete 
harmony,  and  where  inconsistency  becomes  in- 
consistent with  truth."  With  this  general  state- 
ment of  the  case  we  have  no  fault  to  find ;  and 
we  must  now  ask  whether  the  testimonies  of  the 
Gospels  be  credible,  as  presenting  neither  evi- 
dence of  collusion  by  a  suspicious  resemblance, 
1  Essay,  pp.  34, 35. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    23  I 


nor  proof  of  untrustworthincss  by  manifest  con- 
tradictions and  inconsistencies. 

What  is  quite  clear  is  this,  —  that  all  the  four 
Evangelists  assert  unhesitatingly  that  Jeisus  did 
actually  rise  from  the  dead;  or,  in  detail,  that 
He  actually  died  on  the  cross  and  was  laid  in 
the  grave,  that  afterwards  the  grave  was  found 
empty,  and  that  subsequently  He  was  seen  alive 
by  the  Apostles  and  others  before  He  disap- 
peared from  the  earth.  What  objections  are 
alleged  against  these  accounts?  We  take  the 
weightiest  of  them  as  they  appear  in  the  latest 
polemics  of  unbelief. 

First  of  all,  it  is  pointed  out  that  no  one  actu- 
ally saw  Jesus  come  out  of  the  grave  ;  then,  that 
the  different  Evangelists  disagree  as  to  the  time 
when  the  women  came  to  the  sepulchre,  as  to 
the  number  of  the  women,  as  to  the  order  of  the 
appearances,  and  the  places  in  which  our  Lord| 
appeared  to  His  disciples.  It  is  also  said  thatl 
some  of  the  details  are  legendary,  and  that  the 
acts  attributed  to  the  risen  Saviour  arc  inconsist- 
ent and  contradictory. 

Certainly,  to  go  no  further,  we  have  here  a 
serious  array  of  difficulties ;  and  when  they  are 
thus  stated  nakedly,  they  seem  almost  insupera- 
ble. When,  however,  we  view  them  more  closely, 
their  importance  will  be  found  to  diminish  ;  some 
of  them  will  seem  very  trifling  indeed,  others  will 
give  way  to  a  little  patient  examination,  and  some 
which  are  less  easily  brought  into  harmony  may 


Hir' 


Pi, 


n  1 


L'W^ 


'\''/^*'i 


!J.4 


ill 


232 


IV/TA'ESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


yet  be  shown  to  offer  no  real  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  belief,  since  hypotheses  of  sufficient  probabil- 
ity may  be  suggested  for  their  reconciliation. 

Let  us  consider  the  apparent  difficulties  in 
order,  (i)  There  was  no  actual  witness  of  the 
Resurrection  itself,  we  are  told.  The  author 
of  "  Supernatural  Religion  "  thinks  this  fact  so 
important  that  he  brings  it  forward  more  than 
once.^  A  very  simple  illustration  will  show  the 
exact  va^l'^  of  <his  objection.  You  see  a  friend 
in  bed  i\^/.:  V^'^u  leave  his  room  and  come 
back  after  a  ceitain  interval,  and  you  find  the 
bed  empty,  Short)v  afterwards  you  meet  him 
in  the  street  ana  pea;  o  him.  You  did  not  see 
him  get  out  of  bed  ;  but  you  are  as  sure  of  the 
fact  as  though  you  had  seen  him  rise.  Even 
Mr.  Macan  allows  that  "  the  evidence  on  which 
the  Apostles  believed  was  almost  as  strong  as  it 
could  have  been  had  they  seen  Jesus  leave  the 
tomb,  as  they  had  a  few  days  before  seen  Laza- 
rus come  forth."  Perhaps  this  is  enough ;  but 
we  shall  have  to  refer  to  the  objection  again 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  theories  invented 
to  neutralize  the  value  of  the  evidence  in  behalf 
of  the  Resurrection. 

(2)  As  regards  the  time  when  the  women 
came  to  the  sepulchre,  Saint  Matthew  says  it 
was  "  late  on  the  Sabbath  day,  as  it  began  n 
dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the  week."  Saint 
Mark  says,  "  very  early  on  the  first  day  of  the 

^  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  pp.  484,  485  ;  Macan,  p.  28. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     233 

week  .  .  .  when  the  sun  was  risen."  Saint  Luke 
says,  "  on  the  first  clay  of  the  week  at  early  dawn." 
Saint  John,  "  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  .  .  . 
while  it  was  yet  dark"  (Revised  Version).  Now 
the  presumed  contradiction  is  this,  that  Saint 
John  says  it  was  yet  dark,  and  Saint  Mark  says 
the  sun  had  risen ;  but  Mr.  Macan,  who  points 
out  this  apparent  discrepancy,^  does  not  note 
the  phrase  employed  by  Saint  Matthew,  "  as  it 
began  to  dawn,"  which  exactly  reconciles  the 
two  other  statements,  and  is  the  more  remarkable 
as  it  is  connected  with  the  expression  in  which 
this  Evangelist  stands  alone,  "  late  on  the  Sab- 
bath day,"  or,  as  in  the  Authorized  Version,  "  in 
the  end  of  the  Sabbath."  Mr.  Macan  actually 
bases  on  the  language  of  Saint  Matthew  the 
theory  that  this  Evangelist  regarded  the  Resur- 
rection as  having  taken  place  on  what  we  should 
call  the  Saturday  evening,  although  it  is  he  and 
he  alone  who  tells  us  that  it  was  beginning  to 
dawn.  Two  things  we  will  venture  to  say  re- 
specting the  various  expressions  employed  by 
the  four  Evangelists,  —  that  a  really  thoughtful 
reader  would  obtain  very  nearly  the  same  idea 
of  the  time  of  the  visit  to  the  sepulchre  from 
any  one  of  the  Gospels,  and  yet  the  phraseol- 
ogy is  so  remarkably  distinct  as  to  give  the 
clearest  evidence  of  independence.  A  greater 
proof  of  accuracy  as  well  as  truthfulness  we 
should  find  it  difficult  to  imagine. 


l\\ 


if 


'I 


f 
%  I 


•II 


If 


Essay,  p.  39. 


11% 


III 
HI 


i>4^ 


234 


IV/TJVESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


(3)  There  is  much  greater  difficulty  about 
the  number  of  the  women  and  the  order  of  the 
appearancci,  of  Jesus  after  His  resurrection. 
According  to  Saint  John,  Mary  Magdalene 
came  to  the  sepulchre;  according  to  Saint  Mat- 
thew, the  two  Marys ;  according  to  Saint  Mark, 
the  two  Marys  and  Salome  came ;  according  to 
Saint  Luke,  several  women,  including  the  two 
Marys  and  Joanna.  Further,  according  to 
Saint  Mark  and  S:?int  John,  the  first  appearance 
was  to  Mary  Magdalene.  According  to  Saint 
Matthew,  it  was  to  the  women  that  He  appeared, 
although  he  does  not  speak  of  it  as  the  first 
appearance. 

Now,  are  these  statements  necessarily  contra- 
dictory? They  certainly  are  not  identical;  and 
this  is  the  best  proof  of  their  independence,  and 
of  the  sincerity  of  the  writers.  But  it  is  not  im- 
possible to  weave  a  connected  narrative  out  of 
the  statements  of  the  different  Evangelists,  which 
shall  be  perfectly  coherent  and  harmonious,  and 
yet  shall  omit  no  point  which  they  record. 

Let  us  note  then,  first  of  all,  that,  although 
Saint  John  uses  language  which  seems  to  imply 
that  Mary  Magdalene  came  alone  to  the  sepul- 
chre, he  incidentally  shows  that  she  was  not 
alone,  for  he  represents  her  as  saying,  **  Wp 
know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him."  If,  then, 
we  suppose  that  several  of  the  women  came  to- 
gether to  the  sepulchre,  and  that  Mary  Magda- 
len'e  w^as  separated  from  them  for  a  short  time, 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    235 


—  a  thing  which  might  quite  easily  happen  in 
the  gray  dawn  of  the  morning, — we  can  quite 
understand  that  our  Lord  showed  Himself  to 
her  first,  and  that  He  appeared  directly  after- 
wards to  the  other  women,  as  recorded  by  Saint 
Matthew,  who  gives  the  fact  generally  without 
reference  to  the  circumstance  (with  which,  per- 
haps, he  was  not  acquainted)  that  He  had  first 
appeared  to  Mary  Magdalene  by  herself. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  while  Saint  Luke 
tells  us  of  an  appearance  to  Simon  Peter,  Saint 
John,  who  was  his  companion,  says  nothing  of 
the    matter.     But   here  we   have  a  remarkable 
confirmation  of  the  truth  of  his  narrative ;  for  it 
appears   that   the  two   disciples  had   separated  (I 
before  the   Lord  appeared   to   Simon,   and  we  | 
know  it  is  the  custom  of  Saint  John  to  record' 
only  those  events  in  which  he  took  part  himself,/] 
or  else  those  which  were  necessary  for  the  ex- 
planation of  events  which  he  witnessed  and  re- 
corded.^    In   all   probability,    as   we   shall   see 
later  on.  Saint  Luke  obtained    the  information 
respecting  the  appearance  to  Peter  from  Saint 
\  Paul. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  Saint  Matthew  records 
no  appearances  of  our  Lord  to  the  disciples  in 
Jerusalem,  Saint  Mark  and  Saint  Luke  none  in 
Galilee.     Yet  Saint  Luke  says   that  the  angels 


ii 


1  This  characteristic  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  been  brought 
out  very  clearly  by  recent  commentators,  as  Luthardt,  Godet, 
and  Westcott. 


fwr 


236 


WITNESSES  TQ  CHRIST. 


reminded  them  of  what  the  Saviour  had  said 
while  He  was  in  GaHlce,  without  adding  the 
promise  of  His  appearing  there,  inasmuch  as  he 
did  not  mean  to  record  that  manifestation ;  while 
Saint  Matthew,  for  the  opposite  reason,  may 
have  preserved  the  words  in  which  the  angels 
told  the  women  that  the  Lord  was  going  into 
Galilee ;  and  Saint  John  records  appearances 
both  in  Jerusalem  and   in  Galilee. 

There  are  some  other  minor  difficulties,  on 
which  no  great  stres^  can  be  laid,  such  as  the 
account  of  the  anointing,  the  number  of  the 
angels,  and  some  other  points.  But  of  what  use 
would  it  be  to  discuss  the  number  of  the  angels 
at  the  sepulchre,  when  the  author  of  "  Super- 
natural Religion  "  regards  the  mere  introduction 
of  an  angel  at  all  as  a  proof  of  the  unhistorical 
character  of  the  narrative?  "Can  we  believe," 
he  asks,  "  that  an  '  angel,'  causing  an  earthquake, 
[where  is  that  asserted?]  actually  descended 
and  took  such  a  part  in  this  transaction?  "  And 
then  he  adds,  "  If  the  introduction  of  the  angel 
be  legendary,  must  not  also  his  words  be  so?  "  * 

Yes ;  but  why  should  the  "  introduction  of 
the  angel  be  legendary"?  If  it  were  so,  the 
critic  would  still  have  to  deal  with  the  appear- 
ances of  Christ  to  His  disciples;  he  would  still 
have  to  account  for  their  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  their  Lord.  But  what  necessity  is  there 
for  suggesting   the  theory  of  legend?     If  an 

^  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  ill.  pp.  448,  449. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    237 


event  SO  stupendous  as  the  Resurrection  took 
place,  it  was  by  no  means  incredible  that  it 
should  be  witnessed  by  angels.  The  opposition 
to  these  details  of  the  miracle  really  rests  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  Resurrection  could  not 
have  taken  place,  or  did  not  take  place.  But 
this  is  to  beg  the  whole  question ;  and  it  will  be 
found  that  the  main  objections  urged  against 
this  portion  of  the  Gospel  narrative  are,  for  the 
most  part,  of  a  purely  a  priori  character. 

Difficulties  and  apparent  contradictions,  such 
as  are  here  met  with,  would  present  no  real  ob- 
stacle to  belief  if  they  were  found  connected 
with  ordinary  human  history.  It  is  the  assump- 
tion that  the  main  narrative  in  this  case  cannot 
be  true,  which  leads  to  the  exaggeration  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  details  of  the  history.  It  is 
impossible  to  resist  the  conviction  that  the  ob- 
jectors to  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection  find  dis- 
crepancies in  the  history  because  they  have 
made  up  their  minds  that  they  are  not  to  be- 
lieve it. 

Besides  the  points  already  noticed,  two  or 
three  of  minor  importance  should  at  least  be 
mentioned.  Thus  it  is  said  that  the  beautiful 
and  touching  narrative  of  our  Lord's  appearance 
to  the  two  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus  is 
essentially  legendary.^  But  this  is  the  very 
point  in  question, — the  very  thing  which  has  to 
be  proved  and  not  to  be  assumed.     The  writer 

1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  462. 


.  %i 


I  n  > 


Ifi  nil 

■  4 


i1 


li 

mil 


238 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


might  with  as  much  propriety  tell  us  at  once 
that  the  whole  history  is  legendary,  and  have 
done  with  it.  We  cannot  accept  his  prejudice 
or  his  impression  as  proof  of  the  unhistorical 
character  of  an  incident  which  the  Christian  re- 
gards with  gratitude  and  delight,  and  which  can 
be  set  aside  only  on  grounds  that  would  be 
fatal  to  all   religion  as  well  as   revelation. 

Then  the  same  writer  tells  us,  with  the  greatest 
confidence,  that,  if  the  risen  Jesus  could  cat  a 
piece  of  broiled  fish,  He  could  not  enter  a  room 

I  when  the  door  was  closed,  nor  vanish  suddenly 

^  out  of  the  sight  of  His  disciples;^    but  this  is 
assuming  a  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  mat- 

I  ter  to  which  the  most  learned  of  scientific  men 

!  will  make  no  pretensions. 

Once  more,  it  is  alleged  that  the  accounts  of 
the  Ascension  are  contradictory  and  irreconcila- 
ble. Saint  John  does  not  mention  it.  Saint 
Mark  records  the  fact  without  saying  where  it 
happened.  Saint  Matthew  seems  to  say  it  took 
place  in  Galilee.  Happily,  however,  for  the 
credit  of  the  Evangelists,  the  principal  objector 
to  the  historical  character  of  their  work  does  not 
merely  accuse  them  of  contradicting  each  other ; 
he  accuses  Saint  Luke  of  contradicting  himself. 
In  the  Gospel,  he  says,  Saint  Luke  represents 
the  Ascension  as  taking  place  on  the  same  day 
as  the  Resurrection,  and  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  (for  he   allows   that  both  books   are 

1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  459. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     .?39 


from  the  same  hand)  he  says  it  was  forty  days 
latcr.i 

It  is  a  very  happy  example  of  the  unreason- 
able and  captious  temper  in  which  these  docu- 
ments have  been  examined.  If  these  two  books 
were  by  different  writers,  we  should  certainly  be 
told  triumphantly  that  there  was  a  manifest  dis- 
crepancy between  them.  Seeing  that  they  arc 
by  the  same  writer,  the  second  book  taking  up 
the  narrative  at  the  point  at  which  the  earlier 
dropped  it,  there  would  certainly  be  needed  a 
great  stretch  of  credulity  to  believe  that  the  first 
page  of  the  second  part  flatly  contradicted  the  last 
page  of  the  first.  Surely,  the  natural  explana- 
tion is  much  simpler  and  more  credible.  In  the 
Gospel  Saint  Luke  recorded  the  bare  fact,  and 
in  the  Acts  he  gave  it  in  its  connection  with 
other  events.  It  is  a  good  illustration  of  the 
difference  between  the  more  condensed  and  the 
more  extended  narratives  of  the  sacred  books. 
The  writers  are  frequently  careless  of  the  indi- 
cations of  place  or  time,  where  these  would  have 
no  significance  for  the  contents  of  their  record. 
When  they  seem  essential,  they  arc  mentioned. 
In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Saint  Luke  was 
about  to  record  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  therefore  he  speaks  of  the  lengthened  period 
of  preparation  for  that  great  event  which  our 
Lord  afforded  to  His  disciples.  In  the  Gospel 
He  was  recording  the  history  of  parts  of  the  life 

'  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  pp.  470,  474,  571. 


'! 


240 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


I  '1^**1 


and  work  of  Christ,  and  he  simply  added  the 
mention  of  His  ascension  to  the  account  of  His 
resurrection.  An  explanation  so  simple  of  the 
seeming  contradictions  between  two  works  of 
the  same  writer  may  serve  to  render  us  cautious 
in  believing  that  one  of  these  writers  contradicts 
another. 

What  would  be  the  verdict  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice, if  evidences  such  as  we  possess  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  were  brought  forward  on  behalf 
of  any  event  to  which  the  witnesses  could  bear 
personal  testimony?  Even  if  the  seeming  dis- 
crepancies in  their  witness  were  real  discrepan- 
cies, no  reasonable  man  would  doubt  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  main  fact.  In  certain  details,  they 
would  say,  there  may  have  been  slight  failures 
of  memory,  but  as  regards  the  central  fact  there 
can  be  no  room  for  doubt. 

And  this  is  the  conclusion  arrived  at  even 
by  rationalistic  writers  who  have  examined  the 
evidences  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  Even 
although  the  particular  facts  in  the  history,  says 
Keim,^  be  contradictory  and  legendary,  "  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  in  general  "  —  the  Resurrec- 
tion itself,  that  is  to  say  —  "  belongs  to  the  most 
certainly  proved  facts  of  the  New  Testament." 
We  see  no  reason  to  infer  a  legendary  character 
in  any  part  of  the  record ;  we  certainly  are  not 
sensible  that  any  of  the  seeming  discrepancies 
must  be  understood  to  be  contradictions;  but 
1  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  vol.  iii.  p.  529. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JEUS  CHRIST.     24 1 

\vc  gladly  accept  the  testimony  and  assert  the 
truth,  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  dead  is  most  surely  proved  and  established 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  most  critical  investi- 
gator who  is  willing  to  give  its  true  force  to  the 
evidence  adduced. 


5.  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  SAINT  PAUL. 

In  dealing  with  the  evidence  of  Saint  Paul  for 
the  Resurrection  we  have  this  peculiar  advan- 
tage, that  we  are  occupying  ground  which  is 
not  seriously  contested.  Many  of  the  recent 
assailants  of  Divine  Revelation  deny  the  authen- 
ticity of  our  Gospels  on  internal  grounds,  either 
attributing  to  them  an  origin  more  recent  than 
is  consistent  with  their  reputed  authorship,  or 
else  asserting  that  the  original  documents  have 
been  overlaid  by  later  additions. 

In  regard  to  the  history  and  the  writings  of 
Saint  Paul,  the  case  is  different.  The  broad 
facts  of  his  history  are  not  denied  ;  the  genuine- 
ness of  certain  of  his  writings  is  not  contested. 
We  arc,  therefore,  on  ground  which  is  allowed 
by  our  adversaries ;  and  the  only  question  be- 
tween us  has  regard  to  the  true  significance  of 
Saint  Paul's  testimony,  and  its  bearing  upon  the 
reality  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord.  Let  us 
begin,  then,  by  stating  the  points  on  which  there 
is  general  agreement  among  all  reasonable  stu- 
dents of  this  subject. 

16 


242 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


^\\\ 


2- 


It  is  agreed  that  a  man  whose  original  name 
was  Saul,  a  native  of  Tarsus,  lived  at  the  time 
to  which  his  history  is  assigned,  about  the  mid- 
dle of  Lhc  first  century  of  our  era ;  that  he  was 
originally  an  earnest  or  even  a  fanatical  Jew; 
that  he  was  a  persecutor  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus, — those  who  were  called  Christians  or 
named  contemptuously  Nazarcncs.  It  is  agreed 
that  this  persecutor  was  himself  converted  to  a 
belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  he  became,  in 
consequence,  the  most  zealous  and  devoted 
preacher  of  the  faith  he  had  once  sought  to 
destroy.  Under  his  new  name  of  Paul  he  trav- 
ersed considerable  portions  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, preaching  the  Gospel,  founding  churches, 
guiding  the  infant  communities  which  his  teach- 
ing had  called  into  existence ;  and  finally  he  died 
a  witness  for  the  faith  which  he  had  proclaimed. 
It  is  not  denied  that  he  made  the  greatest  sacri- 
fices for  the  faith  which  he  preached,  or  that  he 
was  induced  to  change  the  whole  current  and 
purpose  of  his  life  by  an  undoubting  belief  that 
Jesus  Christ  had  risen  from  the  dead.  So  much 
is  conceded  by  all  who  are  worthy  of  considera- 
tion in  this  controversy. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  value  of  this  testi- 
mony for  ourselves,  we  must  find  out  what  is  the 
nature  of  the  documents  in  which  it  is  handed 
down  to  us;  and  then,  by  a  careful  examination 
of  those  doc'iments,  consider  what  convictions 
must  be  wrought  in  our  own  minds  by  the  testi- 


name 
;  time 
;  mid- 
le  was 

Jew; 
lies  of 
ms  or 
agreed 
:d  to  a 
me,  in 
evoted 
ght  to 
e  trav- 
n  Em- 
urches, 

teach- 
le  died 

aimed, 
t  sacri- 

hat  he 
nt  and 
f  that 
much 

sidcra- 

testi- 
is  the 
landed 
[nation 
'ictions 
e  testi- 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    243 

mony  which  tlicy  afford.  That  we  may  avoid 
all  needless  distraction  from  our  main  purpose, 
we  shall  restrict  ourselves  to  those  documents 
the  genuineness  of  which  is  not  disputed.  We 
shall,  therefore,  make  no  use,  except  incident- 
ally, of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor  of  the 
disputed  epistles  of  Saint  Paul. 

Now,  there  are  at  least  four  epistles  which,  as 
M.  Renan  remarks,^  are  "  incontestable  and  un- 
contested,"—  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  M.  Renan  himself  believes  that 
several  others  are  Saint  Paul's;  but  these  are 
allowed  by  the  whole  critical  school  of  7\ibingen, 
and  they  are  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  Let  us 
see  what  we  may  learn  from  them  concerning 
the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

Now,  at  a  glance  we  see  two  things :  first,  that 
Saint  Paul  was  converted  by  having  received, 
as  he  believed,  in  some  way,  a  revelation  ofj 
Jesus  Christ,  —  that  he  believed  himself  to  have 
actually  beheld  the  risen  Lord,  and  that  he  had 
learned  from  many  other  Christians  that  they 
also  had  seen  Him  after  His  resurrection  ;  and 
further,  that  many  of  those  who  had  seen  Him  | 
were  alive  at  the  time  when  the  Apostle  wrote. 
These  general  statements  cannot  possibly  be 
called  in  question;  but  it  is  necessary  to  ex- 
amine them  more  carefully  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain what  basis  they  afford  for  our  belief,  and 

1  Saint  Paul,  Introduction,  part  v.     Sec  Note  II. 


fm 


244 


W/TA' ESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


\^    1 


t      / 


whether  it  is  possible  to  suggest  any  hypothesis 
different  from  that  of  the  actual  resurrection  of 
Christ,  which  will  account  for  the  undenied  and 
undeniable  facts  now  recounted. 

First,  let  us  remark  that  we  have  here  a  per- 
fectly independent  testimony.  It  is  not  a  mere 
summary  of  the  Gospel  narrative  made  by  a 
compiler  or  condenser  of  older  documents.  It 
is  not  pretended  that  any  of  the  facts  to  which 
Saint  Paul  bears  testimony  were  derived  from 
the  written  books  of  the  Iwangelists,  or  from 
any  similar  records  or  histories.  He  gained 
them  either  from  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
or  from  the  living  men  who  were  his  own  con- 
temporaries, friends,  fellow-workers.  Even  if  it 
could  be  proved  that  the  accounts  of  the  Resur- 
rection contained  in  the  Gospels  are  legendary 
and  contradictory,  which  we  do  not  believe,  the 
independent  testimony  of  Saint  Paul,  and  of 
those  who  were  alive  when  he  wrote,  must  be 
dealt  with  on  its  own  merits. 

Let  us  begin  with  Saint  Paul's  assertion  of  the 
appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  to  himself.  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ^  he  says,  "  It  pleased 
God  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me."  We  have  no 
doubt  the  reference  here  is  to  the  manner  of  his 
conversion  as  it  is  three  times  recorded  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  As,  however,  we  are 
using  no  authorities  outside  the  limits  of  the 
uncontested  Epistles,  we  will  concede  that  this 

»  Gal.  i.  15, 16. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST     245 


othesis 
;tion  of 
ed  and 

a  per- 
a  mere 
2  by  a 
Its.  It 
)  which 
d  from 
X  from 

gained 

Christ, 
vn  con- 
en  if  it 

Rcsur- 
jendary 
ive,  the 
and  of 
lust  be 

1  of  the 
In  the 
pleased 
ave  no 
r  of  his 
in  the 
we  are 
of  the 
lat  this 


statement  might  signify  no  more  than  a  reve- 
lation of  Christ  to  the  heart  and  spirit  of  the 
Apostle.  The  same,  however,  cannot  be  said  of 
the  passage  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Here,  after  enumer- 
ating a  series  of  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus, 
he  adds,  "  Last  of  all  He  was  seen  of  me  also."  ^ 
And  in  another  place ^  he  asks:  "Have  I  not 
seen  Jesus  our  Lord?" 

Saint  Paul  then  asserts  that  he  had  seen  the 
Lord  Jesus  after  PI  is  resurrection,  just  as  the 
others  had  seen  Him.  It  does  not  follow,  as 
some  critics  have  insinuated,  that  all  the  pre- 
vious appearances  had  been  of  precisely  the 
same  character  as  that  which  was  granted  to 
him,  who  was  as  one  born  out  of  due  time  ;  but 
simply  that  he  also  did  sec  the  Lord,  and  had 
no  doubt  of  that  fact. 

Several  points  in  connection  with  this  appear- 
ance will  have  to  be  considered  when  we  come 
to  examine  the  theories  by  which  it  has  been 
attempted  to  set  aside  the  evidences  for  the  Res- 
urrection as  a  whole.  At  present  we  are  simply 
considering  the  value  of  Saint  Paul's  testimony 
as  trustworthy  evidence.  Now,  the  value  of  this 
particular  testimony  by  itself  will  depend  greatly 
upon  the  character,  circumstances,  and  conduct 
of  the  man  by  whom  it  is  borne.  And,  happily, 
these  are  well  known.  We  know  what  kind  of 
man  Saint  Paul  was.     We  know  whether  he  was 


1  I  Cor.  XV. 


2  2  Cor.  ix.  I. 


246 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


a  man  likely  to  take  up  a  change  of  opinion 
lightly,  whether  his  was  one  of  those  illogical 
minds,  full  of  fancies  and  imaginations,  which 
would  mistake  its  own  internal  sensations  for  ob- 
jective facts.  Saint  Paul  was  a  highly  educated 
Hebrew,  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  religion 
of  his  fathers,  and  bitterly  opposed  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Christ.  It  is  quite  conceivable  that  before 
the  time  of  his  conversion  doubts  may  have 
passed  through  his  mind,  but  they  had  not 
lodged  there.  He  ha  1  heard  the  testimony  of 
the  Apostles.  He  had  listened  to  the  defence  of 
the  first  martyr.  Saint  Stephen,  and  had  givien 
his  vote  ^  for  his  death.  He  had  witnessed  his 
martyrdom.  Yet  he  was  in  no  wise  turned  from 
his  purpose,  and  still  went  on  "  breathing  out 
threatenings  and  slaughter  against  the  disciples 
of  the  Lord."  2 

Various  theories^  have  been  invented  to  ac- 
count for  the  undeniable  fact  of  the  conversion 
of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
his  conscience  had  become  so  troubled  by  the 
thought  of  his  cruelty  towards  the  Christians, 
'  that  he  was  prepared  to  interpret  almost  any 
startling  event  as  a  sign  of  a  divine  interpo- 
sition ;  that  he  was  probably  alarmed  by  a 
thunderstorm  while  engaged  in  the  work  of 
persecution,  and  then  imagined  that  something 
took  place  like  that  which  is  recorded  in  the 

1  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  \|/^(^oi'. 

2  Acts  ix.  I.  "  See  Macan,  p.  83. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST     247 

Acts  of  the  Apostles;  and  that  then,  under  the 
influence  of  this  new  sentiment  thus  enkindled, 
he  began  to  burn  with  an  enthusiasm  which  left 
him  no  time  for  reflection  on  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  which  had  satisfied  him  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ. 

And  this  is  the  theory  which  we  are  expected 
to  receive  in  place  of  the  clear  and  consistent 
account  of  the  matter  which  is  given  three  times 
in  the  New  Testament  by  one  who  was  undoubt- 
edly the  companion  of  Saint  Paul !  It  is,  of 
course,  easy  enough  to  invent  any  number  of 
theories,  and  those  who  are  determined  to  be- 
lieve in  no  supernatural  facts  arc  driven  to 
these  straits;  but  those  who  are  under  no  such 
necessity  may  be  permitted  to  judge  of  such 
theories  as  infinitely  more  difficult  of  belief, 
more  unnatural,  and  more  unreasonable  than 
the  simple  story  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  the  writings  of  Saint  Paul  we  certainly  meet 
with  no  trace  of  such  influences  as  are  here  sup- 
posed. He  was  perfectly  sincere  in  his  hatred 
of  the  Gospel  and  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  What 
he  did  against  Ilim  and  His  disciples  he  did 
ignorantly,  in  unbelief  On  this  point  his  own 
Epistles  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  in 
entire  agreement.  Saint  Paul  evidently  believed 
that,  until  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  His  Son  in 
him,  he  was  in  darkness,  in  error,  and  in  sin. 
He  evidently  believed  that  it  was  this  revelation 
which  produced  the  change  in  him,  and  not  his 


1 1 


II 


h*;; 


■I 


■1 


!  'II  >< 

'    ail 


\-m 


I 
li ' 

\?" 

j  ! 

!!!liii 


KftJB' 


1,1 


)  ! 


'I    ! 


It  I 


248 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST 


own  mental  agitation  which  made  him  look 
upon  some  natural  phenomena  as  signs  of  the 
presence  of  Christ. 

Is  there  any  reason,  from  what  we  know  of 
Saint  Paul's  subsequent  conduct,  to  suppose  that 
he  was  seized  by  a  sudden  impulse  which  pre- 
vented his  rationally  investigating  the  causes  of 
his  conversion?  Did  he  go  forth  on  his  work 
heedless  of  other  men's  testimonies  to  the  Mas- 
ter, to  whose  service  he  now,  once  for  all,  con- 
secrated his  life?  We  have  no  doubt  that  Saint 
Paul  was  thoroughly  convinced,^  by  the  events 
which  accompanied  his  conversion,  that  he  had 
seen  the  Lord ;  that  Jesus,  whom  he  was  per- 
(Secuting,  had  actually  appeared  to  him.  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  he  distinctly  tells  us 
that  he  received  his  commission  and  the  Gospel 
which  he  preached  immediately  from  Christ. 

Now,  we  must  confess  that  if  Saint  Paul  had 
simply  acted  upon  this  conviction,  without  any 
communication  with  the  other  Apostles,  as  far 
as  we  are  concerned,  his  testimony  would  have 
been  of  less  value.  But  that  was  not  the  case. 
In  that  great  chapter  of  the  Plrst  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  in  which  he  teaches  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  he  brings  forward  a  series  of 
testimonies  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  which 

1  We  are  here  in  complete  agreement  with  the  author  of 
"  Supernatural  Religion  "  (vol.  iii.  p.  494),  who  says  that  "  Paul 
was  quite  satisfied  with  his  own  convictions;"  although  we 
deny  his  inference  from  that  fact. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST    249 

his  readers  m'ght  verify  for  themselves.  Surely, 
this  is  not  the  work  of  a  mere  enthusiast,  but  of 
a  calm,  thoughtful,  reasonable  man.  We  must 
draw  special  attention  to  these  testimonies,  be- 
cause they  arc  of  the  greatest  possible  value, 
and  the  inipugncrs  of  the  truth  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion have  felt  that  here  they  must  put  forth  the 
whole  strength  of  their  attack  if  they  would 
hope  to  destroy  the  Christian  faith. 

The  first  objection  alleged  is  the  most  extraor- 
dinary. It  is  to  the  effect  that  "  the  testimony 
upon  which  the  Resurrection  rests,"  is  "  com- 
prised in  a  dozen  lines  "  !  ^  But  what  is  the  tes- 
timony the  worse  for  its  brevity?  The  real 
question  to  be  considered  is  its  truth  or  its  false- 
hood, and  the  means  which  the  witnesses  had  of 
knowing  whether  it  was  true  or  not. 

Then,  it  is  said,  there  can  be  no  doubt  "  that 
Paul  intended  to  give  the  appearances  in  chro- 
nological order,"  and  that  it  would  "  be  a  fair 
inference  that  he  intended  to  mention  all  the 
appearances  of  which  he  was  aware." '-^  We 
know  of  no  reason  for  allowing  the  truth  of 
either  of  these  assertions ;  but  if  they  were  true 
they  could  not  in  the  least  degree  affect  the 
value  of  the  testimonies  actually  given. 

Two  things  are  quite  obvious  :  first,  that  Saint 
Paul  obtained  the  testimony  which  he  here  re- 
cords from  the  persons  whom  he  mentions  as 

^  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  483. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  4SS. 


111! 


250 


WITNESSES   TO  C//RIST. 


having  seen  the  Lord  after  his  resurrection  ;  and 
secondly,  that  he  put  this  testimony  upon  record 
at  a  time  when  the  witnesses  were  ahve,  at  a 
time  when  they  themselves  were  proclaiming 
the  same  facts,  and  when  it  was  possible  and 
easy  to  interrogate  them  on  the  subject  of  their 
testimony.  It  is  agreed  that  the  Epistle  was 
written  between  twenty  and  thirty  years  after 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  when  Saint  Peter  and 
most  of  the  Apostles  were  alive ;  and  the  writer 
distinctly  states  that  the  greater  number  of  those 
who  had  been  witnesses  remained  "  unto  this 
present."  ^ 

The  very  selection  of  the  instances  which  he 
places  on  record  is  significant;  and  it  might 
suggest  to  a  candid  reader  that  these  instances 
are  not  exhaustive.  He  mentions  Peter  and 
James  as  having  seen  the  Lord ;  and  it  is  note- 
worthy that  these  are  the  "  pillar"  Apostles  whom 
alone  he  saw,  as  he  tells  us  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,^  when  three  years  after  his  conversion 
he  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  What  more  natural 
than  that  these  two  Apostles  should  have  told 
this  new  convert,  this  new  witness  to  the  Resur- 
rection, of  their  own  interviews  with  their  risen 
Lord  } 

It  has  actually  been  attempted  to  throw  doubt 
upon  this  testimony :  the  event  is  mentioned  in 
the  most  "cursory"  manner  by  Saint  Paul  and 
by  no  one  else.    Saint  John  does  not  mention  it, 

1  I  Cor.  XV.  6.  -  Cal.  ii.  9. 


1 


he 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     2$  I 

althoiigli  he  was  Saint  Peter's  companion.  But 
the  probable  reason  of  Saint  John's  silence,  to 
which  we  have  already  referred,  is  passed  over. 
Yet  we  arc  not  without  partial  confirmations  of 
the  testimony,  if  such  were  needed.  Although 
we  are  not  at  present  using  the  contents  of  the 
Gospels,  we  may  yet  note,  in  passing,  that  Saint 
Mark,  the  companion  of  Saint  Peter,  records 
the  words  of  the  angel  at  the  sepulchre,  "  Go 
tell  the  disciples  and  Peter,"  ^  indicating  a  spe- 
cial reference  to  him ;  and  Saint  Luke,^  the 
companion  of  Saint  Paul,  represents  the  Apos- 
tles as  speaking  of  the  Lord  having  "  appeared 
unto  Simon." 

But  indeed,  as  we  have  already  hinted,  the 
special  mention  of  these  two  appearances  by 
Saint  Paul  is  in  no  way  unnatural,  but  the  re- 
verse. As  we  have  remarked,  they  were  the  two 
whom  the  Apostle  first  met  after  his  conversion. 
It  was  hardly  possible  that  they  should  omit  to 
tell  liim  of  their  having  seen  the  Lord  when  they 
heard  his  testimony;  and  it  was  quite  impos- 
sible that  he  should  ever  forget  it.  Will  any 
one  venture  to  suggest  that  Saint  Paul  put  these 
testimonies  on  record,  and  that,  too,  during  the 
life  of  the  alleged  witnesses,  without  having  re- 
ceived their  authority  for  the  testimony? 

But,  further,  Saint  Paul  tells  us  that  the  Lord 
appeared  not  to  two  only,  but  to  the  twelve,  — 
that  is,  to  the  whole  company  of  the  Apostles,  — 

1  Mark  xvi.  7.  2  Luke  xxiv.  34. 


1.1  -'! 


I 


m 


m 


252 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST 


and  then  to  five  hundred  of  the  brethren,  and 
lastly  to  himself.  Even  if  these  were  all  the  ap- 
pearances that  the  Apostle  had  heard  of,  the 
value  of  his  evidence  would  in  no  way  be  les- 
sened ;  but  we  cannot  help  being  struck  by  the 
notion  of  there  being  a  selection,  when  we  con- 
sider the  cases  actually  mentioned.  And  this 
may  explain  the  omission  of  the  appearances  to 
Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  women.  In 
those  days  women  were  not  heard  as  witnesses 
in  a  court  of  justice ;  and  the  Apostle  may  have 
felt  that  their  testimony  would  have  added  noth- 
ing to  the  proofs  which  he  adduced  in  evidence 
of  the  Resurrection.  • 

With  regard  to  the  appearance  to  the  five 
hundred,  it  is  objected  that  this  occurrence  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  Gospels.^  Here  is  a  speci- 
men of  the  kind  of  criticism  against  which  we 
have  a  right  to  protest  in  the  name  of  science 
and  consistency.  First  of  all,  the  testimony  of 
the  Gospels  is  declared  to  be  untrustworthy, 
and  then  it  is  brought  in  to  cast  doubt  upon 
evidence  which  could  not  otherwise  be  discred- 
ited. If  the  defenders  of  the  Gospel  were  as 
arbitrary  in  their  method  of  handling  their 
authorities,  they  would  be  loftily  reminded  that 
no  treatment  of  these  subjects  could  ever  re- 
ceive attention  which  was  not  conducted  in  a 
manner  purely  scientific !  There  is,  however, 
nothing  in  the  Gospels  that   would  lead  us  to 

*  Supernatural  Relipi'.n,  vol.  iii.  p.  491. 


In'i' 


IP 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     253 

doubt  the  truth  of  Saint  Paul's  statement  about 
the  appearance  of  the  Lord  to  five  hundred  at 
one  time,  probably  in  GaUlcc.  The  Apostle's 
statement  is  precise,  and  seems  to  challenge 
investigation.  Of  these  five  huntlred,  he  says, 
"the  greater  j)art  remain  unto  this  present." 
Nothing  could  be  much  easier  than  the  verifi- 
cation of  such  an  assertion.  It  was  made  with 
reference  to  events  which  did  not  concern 
merely  a  small  and  obscure  body  of  men,  but 
events  which  were  openly  proclaimed  by  a  hun- 
dred voices  in  the  light  of  day,  events  with  { 
which  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  were 
ringing.  If  the  Apostle  could  write  words  like 
these  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  city  so  distin- 
guished for  its  philosophical  culture  as  Corinth, 
without  the  distinct  knowledge  of  their  truth, 
he  must  have  been  either  an  impostor  or  a 
madman.  Rather,  he  must  have  been  both ; 
and  the  worst  enemies  of  the  Gospel  will 
hardly  assert  that  he  was  either  the  one  or  the 
other. 

What,  then,  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  at 
which  we  arrive  from  an  investigation  of  this 
portion  of  Saint  Paul's  writings?  Surely  this, 
as  it  has  been  stated  by  a  writer  who  is  not  fa- 
vorable to  Christianity,^  "  that  within  a  few  years 
of  Christ's  resurrection,  a  large  number  of  peo- 
ple believed  that  he  had  risen  from  the  dead," 

1  Major   Ijutler,   author   of  "Erewhon,"  etc.,  in   the  "Fair 
Have  "  p.  27. 


i 


11 


254 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


and  "  that  they  had  seen  Him  alive  after  He  had 
been  dead.  This,"  he  says,  "  has  been  well  es- 
tablished, and  indeed  has  seldom  been  denied." 
Such,  then,  was  the  undoubting  belief  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  were  not,  then, 
deceivers ;  they  said  what  they  believed  to  be 
true.  Were  they,  then,  deceived,  were  they  rnis- 
taken  in  this  belief?  This  is  the  only  question 
which  remains  for  consideration ;  and  it  shall 
receive  attention  in  the  closing  Lecture. 


'it  ' 


had 
1  es- 
:d." 

the 
hen, 
)  be 
mis- 
tion 
ihall 


LECTURE    VIII. 

THE   RESURRECTION    OF  JESUS    CHRIST. 


PART    II. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THEORIES  INVENTED  TO  SET  ASIDE 
THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  RESURRECTION. 

No   Evidence  will   convince   those  who  are  resolved  not  to 
believe.  —  Theory  of   Imposture  abandoned.  —  How,  then, 
escape  from  the  Force  of  the  Testimony  >  —  Two  Theories : 
I.  The   Theory  of   Apparent   Death,  —  partly   abandoned, 
partly  kept  in  Reserve.  —  The  one  Element  of  Probability 
in  the  Theory.  —  But  consider  what  the  Theory  requires  us 
to  believe.  —  Difficulties.  —  Does  not  account  for  the  Change 
in   the  A|io.stlcs.  —  Involves    Imposture,  —  2.  The   Vision 
Hypothesis.  —  The  last  Word  of  the  Assailants.  —  Asserts 
Illusion,   not   Imposture.  —  The   Theory  explained.  —  Not 
entirely  new.  —  Different  Views  of  Strauss.  —  What  the  11- 
lusion  Theory  involves.  —  Requires   the    inadmissible  As- 
sumption that  the  Disciples  expected  the  Resurrection.  — 
The  Theory  docs  not  account  for  the  Chance   in  the   Disci- 
ples. —  Inconsistent   Treatment  of   the    Cospcls.  —  Mary 
Magdalene.  —  The   Apostles.  —  Their  Doubts  and   Disbe- 
lief.—  The  Vision  fails  to  account  for  undoubted  Facts.  — 
Why  did  the  Appearances  cease  so  abruptly  }  —  What  be- 
came of  the  Sacred  Cody  >  —  The  Truth  of  the  Resurrection 
alone  accounts  for  the  new  Faith  of  the  Disciples.  —  The 
End  of  this  Controversy. 

IF  the  examination  of  the  question  of  the  res- 
urrection of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  were 
allowed  to  be  a  mere  question  of  evidence,  de- 
termined as  any  other  matter  of  doi:bt  would  be, 


V  u 


2s6 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


■|1, 


:  ,';  ii 


there  certainly  would  appear  to  be  no  difficulty 
in  arriving  at  a  final  conclusion.  The  evidence 
which  satisfied  the  disciples  of  Christ  might  suf- 
fice for  the  convincing  of  any  unprejudiced  in- 
quirer. But  the  assailant  of  the  Gospel  is  not 
unprejudiced.  He  has  resolved  that  he  will  be- 
lieve in  no  supernatural  occurrences ;  and  there- 
fore, if  proofs  that  seem  adequate  are  brought 
forward  in  support  of  such  occurrences,  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  invent  some  theory  which 
shall  account  for  the  testimony  without  allowing 
the  truth  of  the  matter  to  which  the  testimony 
is  borne. 

So  it  has  been  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
Its  assailants  arc  quite  candid.  They  tell  us 
that  no  evidence  is  conceivable  that  would  prove 
it;  and  then  they  try  to  show  that  the  evidence 
given  is  insufficient.  We  are  now  to  consider 
whether  any  of  the  theories  which  they  offer  can 
be  reasonably  regarded  as  sufficient  to  set  aside 
the  evidence  which  we  have  already  brought 
forward.  There  are  only  two  or  three  of  these 
theories  which  even  the  opponents  of  the  Gospel 
would  now  think  worthy  of  attention. 

In  the  first  place,  there  are  few,  if  any,  who 
will  in  these  days  even  suggest  that  the  first 
Christian  teachers  were  impostors.  This  theory 
was  a  very  early  one.  As  we  learn  from  Origen, 
it  was  advocated  by  Cclsus ;  and  it  has  been 
from  time  to  time  revived  in  the  coarser  forms 
of  unbelief.     Nay   more,  as   we  shall   have  to 


Ifl 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST    2 $7 


show,  the  assumption  of  imposture  is  more  or  \ 
less  involved  in  one  of  the  theories,  which  still  \ 
possesses  some  adherents,  although  the  advo-  ^ 
cates  of  the  theory  themselves  do  not  con- 
sciously hold  this  opinion.  In  fact,  there  is  in 
these  days  no  assailant  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Resurrection  of  any  eminence  or  respectability 
who  thinks  of  charging  the  Apostles  with  impos- 
ture. Whether  we  consider  the  men  themselves, 
or  the  doctrines  which  they  promulgated,  or  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  we  feel 
that,  whatever  they  were,  they  were  not  deceiv- 
ers;  they  could  not  have  been  conscious  liars. 
Even  if  we  knew  nothing  of  their  characters,  even 
if  we  ignored  the  contents  of  their  teaching,  we 
must  admit  that  they  could  have  no  motive  for 
undertaking  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
except  a  strong  faith  in  its  truth,  when  they  had 
only  poverty  and  suffering  and  death  as  their 
earthly  reward. 

Unbelievers  must,  thcrefoie,  find  other  ways 
of  escape  from  the  force  of  their  testimony  than 
the  charge  of  dishonesty.  Two  theories  have 
accordingly  been  brought  forward  in  recent 
times  with  the  purpose  of  neutralizing  the  evi- 
dence for  the  Resurrection:  the  first,  that  Jesus 
did  not  really  die,  but  was  taken  from  the  cross 
in  a  swoon,  and  afterwards  revived  ;  the  second, 
that  the  disciples  did  not  really  see  their  risen 
Lord,  but  only  imagined  that  they  did.     These 

theories  we  must  now  examine. 

17 


£  - 


258 


WITNESSES   TO    CHRIST. 


I.  THE  THEORY   OF   APPARENT   DEATH. 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  suppositions, 
the  theory  that  Jesus  did  not  really  die  upon 
the  cross,  although  it  was  advanced  by  Paulus 
and  supported  by  some  other  writers  of  emi- 
nence, it  may  be  said  that  it  has  been  given  up 
as  untenable  by  the  principal  opponents  of  the 
Gospel, —  for  instance,  by  Strauss,  Renan,  Ma- 
can,  the  author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion,"  and 
others.  As,  however,  it  still  has  supporters  of 
ability,  and  may  yet  be  resuscitated  if  other 
theories  have  to  be  abandoned,  it  will  not  be 
safe  to  leave  it  unconsidered.  The  author  of 
"  Supernatural  Religion,"  indeed,  seems  to  keep 
it  in  reserve  in  case  the  "  Illusion  hypothesis  " 
should  prove  a  failure.  "  Although,"  he  says, 
"  we  have  no  intention  ourselves  of  adopting 
this  explanation  of  the  Resurrection,  it  is,  as  an 
alternative,  certainly  preferable  to  a  bclic^  in  the 
miracle."  ^  Not  a  very  hopeful  kind  of  contro- 
versialist, —  one  who  starts  with  the  assumption 
that,  whatever  may  happen,  the  Resurrection 
cannot  be  believed  !  Any  theory,  however  un- 
reasonable, is  to  be  accepted  rather  than  this. 
We  must  leave  the  spectator  of  the  fray  to  form 
a  judgment  respecting  this  attitude  on  the  part 
of  one  of  the  combatants.  It  is  for  us,  at  any 
rate,   to   consider  whether,  "  as  an  alternative," 

1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  485.     Compare  pp.  435, 
446. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     259 


this  theory  be  at  all  "  preferable  to  a  belief  in  " 
the  Resurrection. 

Now,  the  one  clement  of  probability  which  is 
contained  in  the  theory  of  apparent  death,  is  the 
fact  that  there  was  no  actual  proof  that  our 
Lord  was  really  dead  when  He  was  taken  from 
the  cross.  Whether  subsequent  occurrences 
did  not  afford  proof  ample  and  irresistible, 
whether  any  other  supposition  than  that  of  his 
actual  death  can  possibly  be  entertained, —  these 
are  questions  which  cannot  be  left  out  of  con- 
sideration. It  has,  however,  been  urged  with 
some  force  by  scientific  men,  that  there  was  no 
proof,  at  the  time,  that  life  had  actually  departed 
from  the  Body  which  was  taken  down  from  the 
cross.  When,  however,  we  consider  what  a 
doubt  on  this  subject,  or  a  denial  of  the  actual 
death  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  necessarily  involves, 
then  we  can  feel  little  difficulty  in  rejecting  the 
theory. 

For  —  let  us  mark  it  well  —  whnt  this  theory 
requires  us  to  believe  is  this,  that  the  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Saviour  were  those,  not  of  one 
who  had  come  forth  from  the  grave  in  the  ful- 
ness of  a  new  life,  but  of  a  half-dead  man  who 
had  crept  from  the  tomb,  after  awaking  from  a 
deep  and  deathlike  swoon ;  and  that  these  ap- 
pearances wrought  an  entire  revolution  in  the 
faith  and  hope  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  Even 
the  most  resolute  unbelievers  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion have  felt  constrained  to  reject  this  theory ; 


h   y 


260 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


and  before  urging  certain  objections  of  our  own, 
we  will  allow  the  critics  of  unbelief  to  give  their 
judgment. 

Mr.  Macan  ^  thus  pronounces  upon  the  theory 
in  question :  "  It  was  very  obvious  to  say  that 
the  glorious  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  were 
as  unlike  as  possible  to  the  comings  and  goings 
of  a  feeble  convalescent,  or  of  an  invalid,  who 
shortly  sank  again  under  the  hardships  which 
he  had  sustained ;  it  was  very  obvious  that  such 
a  mere  convalescence  could  never  have  restored 
and  transfigured  the  faith  of  the  disciples,  as  it 
is  generally  admitted  their  faith  was  transfig- 
ured after  the  crucifixion.  This  rationalism 
is  to  us  now-a-days  but  as  a  clumsy  blunder." 
These  remarks  of  Mr.  Macan  arc  little  more 
than  a  repetition  of  the  criticism  offered 
by  D.  F.  Strauss  in  his  later  work,  to  which 
the  English  writer  is  in  many  ways  greatly 
indebted.  "  This  view  of  the  resuscitation  of 
Jesus,"  says  Strauss,^  "  apart  from  the  difficul- 
ties in  which  it  is  involved,  does  not  for  a 
moment  solve  the  problem  with  which  it  is  con- 
cerned, to  explain  the  founding  of  the  Christian 
Church  as  the  result  of  a  belief  in  the  miracu- 
lous revivification  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.  It  is 
impossible  that  a  being  who  had  crept  half  dead 
out  of  the  grave,  and  had  crawled  abcut  in  a 
state  of  weakness,  needing  surgical   treatment, 

"^  Essay,  pp.  61,  62. 

'  Das  Leben  Jesu  fiir  das  deutsche  Volk,  p.  298. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    26 1 


bandaging,  strengthening,  nursing,  and  who  at 
last  succumbed  under  his  sufferings,  should  have 
given  to.  his  disciples  the  impression  that  he 
was  the  Conqueror  of  death  and  the  grave,  and 
the  Prince  of  Life,  —  an  impression  which  lay 
at  the  foundation  of  all  their  future  testimony. 
Such  a  revivification  could  only  have  weakened 
the  impression  which  he  had  made  upon  them 
in  life  and  in  death." 

We  submit  that  these  difficulties  are  unanswer- 
able. Such  a  theory  does  in  no  way  account 
for  the  acknowledged  fact  of  a  marvellous  change 
which  was  wrought  in  the  mental  condition  of 
the  disciples,  —  a  change  which  led  to  the  foun-l 
dation  and  expansion  of  the  Church  of  Christj 
upon  earth.  With  such  a  criticism  we  might  be 
contented  to  leave  this  theory.  As,  however,  it 
has  been  revived  in  the  book  bearing  the  title  of 
the  "  Fair  Haven,"  already  mentioned,  it  may 
be  proper  to  point  out  that  there  are  other  and 
even  more  serious  objections  to  the  hypothesis 
in  question. 

Thus,  the  moment  that  we  face  the  theory, 
we  are  confronted  with  questions  like  the  follow- 
ing: "Did  Jesus  Himself  profess  to  have  risen 
from  the  dead,  when  He  had  only  recovered 
from  a  swoon?  And  did  His  disciples,  know- 
ing the  truth  of  the  matter,  represent  His  resus- 
citation as  a  resurrection  wrought  by  the  power 
of  God?" 

There  are  no  consistent  answers  to  such  ques- 


262 


•   WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


tions,  and  there  is  no  agreement  among  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  theory  as  to  what  became  of  Jesus. 
According  to  one,  He  Hngcrcd  on  for  a  little 
while  and  then  died.  Another  thinks  that,  like 
Moses,  He  withdrew  Himself  from  the  eyes  of 
His  followers,  and  died,  probably  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  hidden  by  a  cloud  from  the  eyes  of 
His  disciples.  According  to  another  He  lived 
for  a  long  time  in  an  obscure  quarter  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  sometimes  in  out-of-the-way  parts  of 
Galilee,  showing  Himself  at  rare  intervals  to  His 
disciples.  One  writer  ^  supposes  that  He  lived 
for  seven  and  twenty  years  after  His  crucifixion, 
and  labored  for  the  good  of  man.  Some  of 
these  writers  have  suggested  other  theories 
which  we  do  not  here  mention,  lest  we  should 
be  supposed  to  bring  them  forward  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  casting  ridicule  upon  the  school  from 
which  they  have  proceeded. 

It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  criticise  these  theo- 
ries in  detail.  There  is  one  general  considera- 
tion which  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  fatal 
to  any  form  of  the  theory  which  holds  that  the 
death  of  Jesus  was  not  real,  but  only  apparent. 
Let  us  endeavor  to  make  this  consideration 
quite  plain.  The  nature  of  our  Lord's  return 
to  life  —  whether  it  was  the  resuscitation  of  one 
who  had  been  half  dead,  who  had  been  buried 
in  a  swoon,  or  a  resurrection  to  life  of  one  who 
had  been  really  dead  —  must  have  been  made 

1  Andreas  Brennecke,  quoted  by  Keim,  vol.  iii.  p.  574. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    263 


known  to  those  who  had  intercourse  with  Ilim 
after  His  resurrection.  And  even  if,  for  a  time, 
there  might  exist  a  doubt  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
change  which  had  passed  upon  Him,  that  doubt 
would  be  entirely  removed  by  His  subsequent 
history.  If  He  were  merely  a  man  brought 
back  from  a  swoon,  then  He  must  have  lived 
as  other  men  lived.  He  must  have  eaten  andf 
drunk,  and  He  must  have  taken  rest  in  sleep; 
and  this  must  have  been  known  to  friends  or  to 
foes.  If  it  were  known  to  foes,  we  are  by  this 
theory  asked  to  believe  that  the  enemies  of  the 
Christian  Society  allowed  the  Apostles  to  bear 
testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  their  Lord  with- 
out making  known  the  real  facts  of  the  case, 
which  would  forever  have  put  an  end  to  any 
belief  in  the  assumed  miracle.  If  it  were  known 
to  His  friends,  then  they  were  nothing  short  of 
impostors ;  for  they  gave  out  that  He  was  not 
only  risen  from  the  dead,  but  that  He  had  as- 
cended to  the  right  hand  of  God.  This  state- 
ment, let  it  be  remembered,  is  not  in  the  Gospel 
history  only.  It  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Saint  Paul:  "  It  is  Christ  that  died,"  he 
says,  "  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again,  who  is 
even  at  the  right  hand  of  God."  ^ 

We  do  not  dwell  upon  the  offensive  sugges- 
tion—  which,  however,  is  quite  inevitable,  if  we 
adopt  this  theory  —  that  the  Holy  One  Himself 
participated  in  the  fraud. 

1  Rom.  viii.  34. 


264 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


'\.  11 


It  has  already  been  remarked  that  there  are 
few  who  will  now  put  forward  this  explanation 
of  the  appearances  of  our  Lord  to  His  disciples 
after  His  death.  We  should  not  have  regarded 
it  as  worthy  of  serious  refutation  but  for  the 
circumstance  already  noted,  that  it  has  still  at 
least  one  advocate  of  some  ability,  and  that  the 
author  of"  Supernatural  Religion  "  has  indicated 
a  disposition  to  fiill  back  upon  it,  if  his  own  hy- 
pothesis should  be  found  wanting.  VVe  repeat, 
therefore,  that  in  no  respect  docs  this  theory 
account  for  the  acknowledged  facts  or  accord 
with  them.  It  explains  nothing,  and  is  burdened 
with  improbabilities  and  contradictions. 

Some  of  the  objections  which  may  be  urged 
against  this  theory  are  equally  applicable  to 
the  one  which  has  still  to  be  examined.  We 
./  refer  in  particular  to  the  question  of  what  be- 
\  came  of  the  sacred  Body  of  the  Lord.  We 
will,  in  conclusion,  urge  only  one  considera- 
tion which  has  already  been  noticed,  and  one 
which  seems  to  be  utterly  fatal  to  its  claims. 
If  this  hypothesis  be  true,  it  is  impossible  to 
acquit  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel  of 
the  charge  of  imposture.  Their  testimony 
was  false,  and  they  must  have  known  it  to  be 
false.  And  this  is  what  we  are  asked  to  be- 
lieve. These  impostors  were  the  men  who 
counted  not  their  lives  dear  to  them,  but  gave 
up  all  that  the  world  had  to  give  to  them,  that 
they  might  preach  truth  and  righteousness  and 


1 


rilE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    26$ 

love  and  mercy  to  their  fcllovv-men.  In  the 
propagation  of  these  doctrines  they  endured  tile 
greatest  sufferini^s  willingly,  joyfully.  In  tes- 
timony of  the  truth  which  they  proclaimed, 
many  of  them  died  without  a  murmur,  without  a 
reproach  addressed  to  Ilim  who  had  called  them 
to  their  work,  without  a  doubt  or  a  fear  with 
respect  to  the  hope  which  He  had  set  before 
them.  If  there  is  a  man  on  earth  who  can  be- 
lieve this,  then  certainly  the  belief  of  any  mir- 
acles, however  astounding,  can  be  a  matter  of 
small  difficulty.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  give 
credit  to  this  implied  charge  of  imposture.  It 
is  not  believed  by  the  adversaries  of  the  Gospel 
themselves. 

2.    THE  VISION   HYPOTHESIS. 

The  theory  which  remains  for  consideration 
must  be  examined  with  the  greatest  attention, 
inasmuch  as  it  may  be  said  to  be  the  last  word 
of  the  assailants  of  the  historical  reality  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  a  new 
theory,  and  the  fluctuations  of  unbelief  on  the 
subject  may  well  give  rise  to  reflections  in  a 
candid  mind.  It  is  quite  clear  that  there  is  no 
small  difficulty  in  getting  over  the  numerous  and 
weighty  evidences  which  are  alleged  in  support 
of  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  Theories  invented  to  account  for  the 
acknowledged  facts  of  early  Christian  history 
have  been  put  forward,  tested,  found  wanting, 


266 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


li  j.<) 


and  discarded.  Wc  do  not  say  that  they  must 
therefore  all,  of  necessity,  be  false ;  but  it  cer- 
tainly raises  a  just  suspicion  that  none  of  them 
may  be  true.  The  theory  now  to  be  considered, 
known  as  the  Vision  hypothesis,  we  hold  to  be 
no  more  satisfactory  than  that  which  assumed 
that  our  Lord  was  not  dead,  but  only  in  a  deep 
swoon,  when  He  was  laid  in  the  grave;  but  it  is 
more  subtle,  and  the  refutation  of  it  requires  a 
greater  amount  of  critical  attention. 

The  theory  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  the 
Illusion  hypothesis,  —  a  term  which  more  exactly 
describes  its  nature,  inasmuch  as  a  vision  either 
may  be  subjective,  or  may  involve  the  percep- 
tion of  an  objective  existence,  of  something 
which  has  a  being  independent  of  the  percipient. 
We  adopt  the  designation  of  "Vision  hypothesis," 
however,  as  that  which  is  most  commonly  em- 
ployed,^ and  we  proceed  to  say  a  few  words  on 
its  nature  and  history. 

According  to  the  Vision  hypothesis,  our  Lord 
did  die,  or  probably  did  die,  upon  the  cross ; 
but  He  did  not  rise  again,  and  He  was  not  really 
seen  alive  after  His  burial.  The  disciples,  how- 
ever, thought  that  they  saw  Him  on  different 
occasions  ;  and  the  belief  that  He  had  appeared, 
and  therefore  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead, 
took  such  hold  of  them,  and  so  spread  among 


^  It  is  the  term  used  by  Strauss,  the  author  of  "  Supernatural 
Religion,"  Mr.  Macan,  and  others,  and  by  Kcim,  who  rejects  it. 
Compare  Note  I. 


1 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    2C7 

them,  that  they  held  it  as  an  undoubted  fact, 
and  proclaimed  it  as  an  essential  part  of  the 
Gospel  which  they  believed  themselves  com- 
missioned to  preach  for  the  salvation  of  men. 

The  theory,  as  we  have  said,  is  not  a  new  one, 
and  its  history  is  instructive.  Somethinj^  of  the 
kind  seems  to  have  been  held  by  Celsus,  who  is 
represented  by  Origen^  as  askings  "Who  saw| 
this  [the  Resurrection]  ?  A  half-frantic  woman, 
as  you  say,  and  perhaps  some  one  else  addicted 
to  the  same  kind  of  juggling,  who  had  in  some 
state  dreamt  it,  or,  in  accordance  with  his  own 
wish,  by  a  wandering  fancy,  had  imagined  it." 
This  is,  in  fact,  very  much  the  same  as  the 
modern  Vision-hypothesis ;  but  Celsus  docs  not 
seem  to  have  laid  much  stress  up(jn  it,  for  he 
adds,  "  or,  which  is  more  likely,  one  wished  to 
impress  others  with  this  marvel  {-eparela),  and 
by  such  a  fraud  to  give  occasion  to  other 
impostors." 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  theory  did  not  gain 
wide  acceptance  among  the  assailants  of  the  his- 
torical truth  of  the  Gospel  history.  Paulus,  the 
greatest  of  the  rationalistic  school,  as  we  have 
seen,  adopted  the  theory  that  Jesus  had  not 
died.  Even  Strauss,  in  his  first  "  Life  of  Jesus," 
based  purely  upon  the  mythical  theory,  gave  a 
somewhat  different  explanation  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion. The  change  in  his  views  is  indeed  so  sig- 
nificant in  relation  to  the  whole  subject,  that  it 
1  Contra  Celsum,  ii.  55. 


f  ' 

i    > 


i 


|.  !'f 


1 


268 


WITNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


U     " 


deserves  to  be  notcd.^  In  the  earlier  "Life" 
the  explanation  ordinarily  given  of  the  Gospel 
miracles  amounted  very  much  to  this,  that  a 
large  number  of  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus 
expected  that  the  Messiah  would  work  a  certain 
kind  of  miracles;  and  so,  having  attributed  a 
Messianic  character  to  Jesus,  they  came  to  be- 
lieve that  lie  actually  did  work  such  miracles. 
The  idea  generated  the  supposed  facts.  So, 
with  regard  to  the  Resurrection,  the  disciples, 
by  reflection  upon  the  Messianic  idea,  came  to 
the  conviction  that  the  Soul  of  God  must  rise 
from  the  dead,  and  so  to  the  belief  that  He 
actually  had  risen. 

The  success  of  this  theory  was,  for  a  time, 
prodigious.  It  got  rid  of  all  the  difficulties, 
many  and  great,  of  the  rationalistic  theory. 
It  hud  an  appearance  of  intellectual  and  spiritual 
elevation,  which  to  many  minds  was  very  at- 
tractive and  fascinating.  It  resolved  the  mirac- 
ulous events  of  the  Gospel  history  in  a  manner 
which  promised  to  be  final.  It  is  not  too  much, 
however,  to  say  that  it  has  been,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, abandoned,  and  abandoned  even  by  its 
inventor,  or  adopter,  and  most  able  and  suc- 
cessful exponent,  Dr.  Strauss.  Facts  were  at 
last  too  strong  for  his  followers.  It  became 
clear  that  there  were  actual  facts  to  be  dealt 
with,    which    had    certainly   taken    place,    and 

1  This  change  has  already  been  remarked  in  the  first  Lecture 
of  the  present  series. 


SBS 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     269 

which  could  not  be  the  mere  product  of  ideas. 
Consequently,   a  theory  must   be   found  which  j 
would  give  a  natural  explanation  of  those  facts ;  \ 
and    this    necessity  led    to   a  partial    return    to 
the  rationalistic  method.     The  events  recorded 
in  the  Gospel  must  in  a  certain  degree  be  ac- 
cepted, but  their  miraculous  character  must  be 
explained  away.     This  new  tendency  found  no-jj 
table  expression  in  Renan's  "  Vie  de  Jesus,"  pub-  ' 
lished  in    1863,  ^'^^  i'"^  Strauss's   new  "  Life  ofy 
Jesus  for  the  German  People,"  put  forth  in  the! 
following  year. 

The  promulgation  of  the  Vision  hypothesis  i 
was  one  of  the  results  and  evidences  of  this  ' 
change.  Jesus  was  now  recognized  as  a  real  ; 
personage  of  a  great  and  elevated  character, 
who  had  lived  and  taught,  and  exercised  a  pow- 
erful influence  over  the  minds  of  His  disciples, 
and  who  was  put  to  death  under  Pontius  Pilate. 
Those  who  had  known  Ilim  in  life  came  to  be- 
lieve that  they  had  seen  Him  alive  after  His 
death.  How  could  these  supposed  appearances 
be  accounted  for?  They  could  not,  of  course, 
be  regarded  as  real  occurrences,  as  that  would 
involve  a  belief  in  miracles  which  must  be  dis- 
carded. They  must  be  regarded  as  imagina- 
tions, visions,  hallucinations.  Such  is,  in  effect, 
the  latest  theory  of  Strauss,  the  theory  of  Re- 
nan,  Macan,  and  the  author  of  "  Supernatural 
Religion." 

Now,  let  us  ask,  fairly  and  candidly,  what,  on 


270 


WITNESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


\  4' 


,1 


this  hypothesis,  we  are  expected  to  believe. 
And  first,  what  is  its  ground  and  starting-point? 
It  is  evidently  to  be  found  in  the  notion  that 
the  disciples  expected  their  Master  to  rise  again, 
and  so  persuaded  themselves  and  each  other 
that  He  had  actually  risen  and  that  they  had 
seen  Ilim.  It  is  a  large  demand  to  make  upon 
our  belief,  —  shall  we  say,  upon  our  credulity? 
To  most  of  us  a  larger  demand  than  the  require- 
ment to  believe  in  a  miracle  wrought  by  the 
power  of  God,  and  to  accept  the  miraculous 
explanation  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  as  the 
best  w^ay  of  accounting  for  the  acknowledged 
facts  of  history.  We  cannot  pretend  to  ap- 
proach the  consideration  of  this  theory  with  an 
expectation  of  finding  it  to  be  in  any  way 
credible. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  quite  incredible  that 
such  a  revolution  should  have  been  worked  in 
the  minds  of  the  Apostles  in  the  short  space  of 
I  three  days.  On  this  point  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  general  Christian  belief  Saint  Paul 
mentions  that  Jesus  rose  on  the  third  day;  and 
the  institution  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the 
Lord's  Day,  which  dates  back  to  the  earliest 
history  of  the  Christian  Society,  is  an  abiding 
witness  to  that  belief  We  are  asked,  then,  to 
believe  tha;,  in  the  short  space  of  two  days  or 
less,  the  disciples  had  entirely  changed  their 
views  of  the  character  of  the  Messiah  and  His 
kingdom,  and  this  without  anything  to  account 


■nmi^nBKHUiiuiuuina^ 


->W 


W 


THE  RESURRECTION     'F  JESUS  CHRIST.     2/1 


way 


that 


iding 


for  it  except  what  is  called  a  natural  reaction  in 
their  own  minds ! 

Let  us  look  at  the  facts.  It  is  universally 
known  and  acknowledged  that  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  like  the  mass  of  their  countrymen,  had 
very  low  and  materialistic  conceptions  of  the 
Mature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  Saint  Paul, 
may  be  taken  as  an  example,  probably  a  favor- 
able example,  of  the  orthodox  Jew,  and  as  illus- 
trntinp  the  views  of  such  respecting  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  The  death  of  Jesus  naturally  gave  a 
great  shock  to  those  who  held  such  views ;  and 
the  writers  who  advocate  the  Vision  hypothesis 
assf.'rt  that,  for  a  moment,  their  faith  failed  them. 
But  directly  afterwards —  such  is  their  theory  — 
there  was  a  reaction  in  their  minds,  and  they 
not  only  recovered  from  their  momentary  doubts 
as  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  but  conceived 
the  belief  that  He  must  have  risen  again. ^ 

The  Gospel  account  is  certainly  far  more  rea- 
sonable, and  much  more  in  keeping  with  what 
we  know  of  human  nature  and  its  laws.  We 
know  of  no  authority  for  the  supposition  that 
the  disciples  lost  faith  in  their  Master,  in  the 
sense  of  supposing  that  He  had  ever  voluntarily 
misled  them.  But  it  is  quite  possible  that  they 
may  have  doubted  whether  they  had  rightly  un- 
derstood him  when  they  thought  He  claimed  to 
be  the  Messiah.  That  He  was  "a  Prophet 
mighty  in   deed   and  word   before   God  and  all 

•  Macan,  p.  85. 


m 


n 


272 


WITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


'in 


■V 

3''       '\ 


Si 


the  people,"  they  never  had  any  reason  to 
doubt;  but  they  may  quite  naturally  have  en- 
tertained doubts  of  His  being  the  promised 
King.  The  words  of  the  disciples  on  the  way 
to  Emmaus  contain  a  very  natural  expression 
of  their  thoucrhts  :  "  VVc  trusted  that  it  had  been 
He  which  should  have  redeemed  Israel."  ^ 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  these  men  not  only 
recovered  their  faith  in  the  Mcssiahship  of 
Jesus,  but  gained  new  and  deeper  and  fuller 
views  of  the  nature  of  His  work,  and  a  faith  so 
strong  that  it  never  afterwards  wavered  ?  This 
is  the  real  problem  which  we  have  to  solve. 
Which  is  the  more  reasonable  answer  to  this 
question,  —  that  which  is  contained  in  the  sim- 
ple narrative  of  the  New  Testament,  or  these 
theories  which  are  invented  to  explain  away  the 
meaning  of  that  narrative? 

The  Gospel  histories  tell  us,  without  any  dis- 
guise, that  the  disciples  were  cast  into  a  state  of 
great  doubt  and  fear  by  the  death  of  their  Mas- 
ter; and  they  further  relate  that  their  doubts 
and  fears  were  dispelled  by  the  sight  of  the 
empty  tomb,  and  by  repeated  appearances  of 
their  risen  Lord,  which  they  had  at  first  some 
difficulty  in  believing,  but  of  which  they  after- 
wards became  assured.  The  advocates  of  the 
Vision  hypothesis,  on  the  contrary,  declare  that 
the  disciples  spontaneously  recovered  from  their 
dismay,  conceived   the    idea   of  their  Master's 

1  Luke  x.xiv.  2\. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     273 


r.  1 


resurrection,  and  therefore  came  to  believe   in 
it,  and  to  tliink  they  had  seen  Him  aHvc. 

These  writers  dwell  with  peculiar  emphasis  on 
the  improbability  of  Saint  John's  account  of  the 
fears  of  the  priests  and  the  doubts  of  the  dis- 
ciples. Is  it  likely,  we  arc  asked,  that  the  Jew-  j 
ish  priests  should  have  remembered  a  prophecy 
which  Jesus  had  delivered  respectini^  His  res- 
urrection, which  His  disciples  had  forgotten? 
Yes,  we  reply;  both  of  these  things  arc  quite- 
probable.  Both  were  taught  by  their  fears. 
When  men's  consciences  are  uneasy,  they  fear 
the  worst.  When  men's  hopes  are  shattered, 
they  are  slow  to  believe  that  they  may  yet  be 
revived.  Herod,  when  he  heard  of  the  fame  of 
Jesus,  thought  that  the  murdered  John  must 
have  risen  from  the  grave ;  and  the  Jcv/s  had 
wickedly  put  to  death  a  greater  and  a  holier 
than  John.  Martha,  the  sister  of  La::arus,  was 
slow  to  understand  the  implied  promise  of  her 
brother's  restoration  to  life.  "  I  know,"  she 
said,^  "  that  he  shall  rise  in  the  resurrection  at 
the  last  day."  The  loss  of  the  disciples  was 
greater  than  hers,  and  their  despondency  deeper. 
And  yet  wp  are  told  —  and  the  theory  we  are 
cxaminin.g  requires  us  to  believe  —  that  the 
Body  of  the  Lord  Jesus  was  hardly  deposited  in 
the  tomb  when  tlicv  became  assured  that  He 
would  return,  and  then  they  immediately  came 
to  believe  that  He  had  returned,  and  that  they 

1  John  xi.  24. 
18 


274 


WIT.VESSES   TO   CHRIST. 


■ffy. 


;^ 


had    seen    Ilim.     Docs    not   this    look    like    an 
effect  witliout  any  antecedent  cause? 

But  wc  must  not  overlook  the  explanation 
which  some  have  given  of  the  dawning  of  this 
new  hope  within  the  hearts  of  the  disciples. 
According  to  M.  Renan,^  it  was  "the  powerful 
imagination  of  Alary  of  Magdala,"  which  played 
the  most  important  part  in  this  transaction. 
She  found  the  grave  empty,  and  immediately 
her  imagination  took  lire,  and  being  raised  up 
into  a  high  state  of  enthusiasm,  she  took  the 
first  person  that  she  met  for  the  risen  Master. 
"  Divine  power  of  love,"  exclaims  M.  Renan, 
"  sacred  moments  in  which  the  hallucination  of 
an  impassioned  woman  gives  a  resuscitated  God 
to  the  world  !  " 

Now,  the  history  of  the  appearance  of  our 
Lord  to  Saint  Mary  Magdalene  is  a  perfectly 
coherent  one,  and  perfectly  reasonable  and  in- 
telligible, just  as  it  stands.  The  moment  that 
wc  try  to  make  it  say  anything  different  from 
what  it  does  say,  we  become  involved  in  absurdi- 
ties and  contradictions.     Say  that  it  is  fabulous, 

i,  and  that  you  do  not  admit  its  authority,  and 
we  will  show  that  we  are  not  dependent  upon  it. 
Or  use  it  to  prove  that  it  was  "  a  half-frantic 
woman  "  who  produced  a  belief  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion among  the  disciples;  but  in  that  case  take 
the  story  just  as  it  stands  on  the  pages  of  Saint 

]  John.     Now,   die   history   tells   us    that    Mary 

•I  Vie  de  Jesus,  c.  xxvi.  p.  434. 


THE  RESURRECTION-  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     275 

Magdalene  had  no  expectation  that  Jesus  would 
rise.  She  came  to  the  grav^c  with  spices  to 
anoint  His  sacred  Body.  But  she  found  the 
grave  empty  and  the  Body  gone.  Here  at  once 
we  are  told  of  something  which  accounts  for 
her  change  of  mind.  Whether  she  remained  to 
hear  what  the  angels  told  the  women,  or  whether 
she  ran  off  at  once  to  tell  Saint  Peter  and  Saint 
John  of  the  empty  grave,  she  had  seen  enough 
to  prepare  her  for  whatever  might  come,^  But 
before  we  can  believe  that  the  reputed  appear- 
ance of  her  risen  Master  was  a  mere  vision  or 
hallucination,  we  must  have  some  account  to 
give  of  the  empty  grave,  and  we  must  also  sat- 
isfy ourselves  that  all  the  other  appearances 
were  imaginary,  and  not  real.  To  the  subject 
of  the  empty  grave  we  will  return  presently. 
Let  us  first  consider  the  effect  which  Clary's  tes- 
timony had  on  the  minds  of  the  disciples.- 

Did  they  at  once  accept  the  testimony  that  the 
grave  was  empty,  that  Mary  had  actually  beheld 
its  tenant  restored  to  life  again,  and  that  there- 
fore they  might  assure  themselves  that  the  Lord 
was  risen?  On  the  contrary,  the  conviction U- 
came  to  them  gradually  and  slowly.  These  '' 
men  were  not  all  enthusiasts.  Granting  that 
there  was  among  them  a  warm,  impulsive  Peter, 
there  was  also  a  cold  and  doubting  Thomas. 
Were  these  the  kind  of  men  who,  in  a  matter  of 

1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  497,  note. 

2  Compare  Macan,  pp.  97,  loi. 


>     II 


2/6 


WITNESSES  TO  CHRIST. 


'is 


such  vital  importance,  would  catch  at  a  floating 
rumor  and  immediately  turn  it  into  solid  fact, 
and  make  it  a  fulcrum  by  means  of  which  they 
would  turn  the  whole  course  of  their  life  into  a 
new  path,  and  move  the  world  of  thought  and 
action?     It  is  most  improbable. 

Saint  Thomas  was  not  the  only  one  of  whom 
we  arc  told  that  he  doubted.  Saint  Matthew  ^ 
relates  that,  at  the  appearance  in  Galilee  which 
he  records,  "when  they  saw  Him  they  wor- 
shipped Him,  but  some  doubted;"  and  the 
author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion "  says  the 
Evangelist  has  omitted  "  to  tell  us  whether,  and 
how,  those  doubts  were  set  at  rest."^  But  sUi.'ily 
this  is  a  rash  statement,  for  the  answer  is  really 
given  in  the  very  next  verse:  "  And  Jesus  came 
and  spoke  unto  them,  saying.  All  power  is  given 
unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  Here  was 
the  resolution  of  their  doubts,  that  He  actually 
spoke  to  them,  as  He  had  been  accustomed  to 
do  before  His  death;  took  up,  as  it  were,  and 
carried  on  the  instructions  which  He  had  pre- 
viously begun,  enabling  them  to  understand  the 
meaning  of  His  life  and  death,  of  His  sufferings 
and  His  resurrection,  as  they  could  never  before 
have  understood  them.  But,  apart  from  the 
narratives  of  the  Evangelists,  which  are  perfectly 
consistent  on  the  supposition  that  there  was  an 
actual  resurrection,  followed  by  real  appearances 

1  Matthew  xxviii.  17. 

2  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  46S. 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    277 


of  the  risen  One,  the  Vision  hypothesis  fails  to 
explain  certain  undoubted  facts  in  the  apostolic 
history. 

How  came  it  to  pass,  we  may  ask,  that  there  \ 
was  such  an  entire  agreement  among  the  dis-  y 
ciples  as  to  the  nature  of  these  appearances?  ; 
Let  it  be  granted  that  a  man  in  a  high  state  of 
enthusiastic  excitement  may  believe  that  he  sees 
some  object  which  is  only  the  product  of  his 
own  imagination.  Let  it  be  granted  that  such 
a  man  may  communicate  his  own  hallucination 
to  others,  so  that  they  may  come  to  believe  that 
they  have  seen  what  he  has  seen,  sometimes 
apart  and  singly,  at  other  times  when  large 
numbers  arc  assembled  togetliCr.  Even  if  we 
concede  that  this  is  possible,  we  cannot  make 
the  same  concession  when  v/c  arc  told  that  this 
illusion  presented  itself  under  the  same  form  to 
all  who  had  caught  the  enthusiasm,  or  that  their 
testimony  on  the  subject  was  completely  har- 
monious and  accordant. 

There  is  another  difficulty  which  lies  in  the 
path  of  this  theory.  If  these  appearances  had 
no  objective  reality,  how  w^as  it  that  they  ceased 
so  soon  and  so  abruptly?^  Why  did  they  con-i 
tinue  at  intervals  f  ^r  a  certain  time  to  one  after 
another,  and  to  assemblies  of  the  disciples,  and 
then  abruptly  come  to  an  end?  If  they  were 
mere  illusions  begotten  of  a  heated  imagina- 
tion, there  was  no  reason  why  they  should  not 

1  This  point  is  well  urged  by  Kcim. 


278 


IV/TNESSES  TO   CHRIST. 


i^<^'. 


l\    *-^ 


**    .^ 


■I 
i 


continue.  If  wc  take  the  account  of  the  matter 
which  is  given  in  the  New  Testament,  all  is  clear 
and  consistent.  I'^or  forty  days  after  His  resur- 
rection the  Lord  remained  on  earth,  and  mani- 
fested Himself  from  time  to  time  to  His  disciples, 
speaking  to  them  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  and  preparing  them  for  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  iVftcr  His  ascension  He 
appeared  only  to  Saint  Stephen  and  to  Saint 
Paul,  and  in  a  different  manner  afterwards  to 
Saint  John ;  but  to  all  these  "  in  glory."  He 
had  then  ascended  to  the  l'\ithcr.  Up  to  the 
time  of  His  ascension  He  was  in  a  certain  sense 
personally  present  with  His  disciples  on  earth. 
From  that  time,  and  especially  from  the  Day 
of  Pentecost,  He  was  still  with  them ;  but  not 
in  person.  They  had  then  another  Comforter, 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  was  appointed 
to  abide  with  them,  and  lead  them  into  all 
truth. 

This  is  the  account  of  the  matter  which  is 
given  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  is  quite 
clear  and  consistent.  We  understand  the  ^xcdX 
change  which  took  place  at  the  end  of  the  forty 
days.  On  the  Vision  hypothesis  the  change  is 
totally  inexplicable. 

lUit  there  is  still  another  question  v/hich  re- 
quires an  answer,  and  to  which  an  answer  must 
be  given  before  either  of  these  theories  can 
be  accepted  as  even  worthy  of  consideration. 
*'  What  became  of  the  sacred  Body  which  had 


THE  RESURRECTIOX  OF  JESUS  CIIKIST.     2/9 


all 


been  taken  from  the  cross  and  laid  in  the 
grave?"  Here:  at  least  there  is  ai;rcLnn;nt, — 
in  the  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  was  crucified,  and 
that  lie  was  buried.  Whether  lie  was  only  hall" 
dead  and  came  to  life  again,  or  whether  lie  was 
dead  and  did  not  revive,  in  cither  case  He  was 
at  least  buried,  and  in  either  case  the  sacred 
Body  was  ultimately  deposited  somewhere.  On 
any  theory  opposed  to  that  which  asserts  an 
actual  resuscitation  and  resurrection,  the  ques- 
tion must  be  answered,  What  became  of  the 
Bod)'  of  the  Lord?  Renan  ^  treats  this  subject 
with  his  accustomed  airy  levity.  "  Had  His 
body  been  taken  away,"  he  asks,  "  or  was  it  an 
afterthou[.;ht  of  enthusiasm,  always  credulous, 
which  produced  the  stories,  in  order  to  estab- 
lish faith  in  the  Resurrection?  ...  It  is  a 
matter,"  he  adds,  "  in  which,  from  the  f:iult 
of  contradictory  documents,  we  shall  be  forever 
ignorant," 

Others  find  "  so  many  difficulties  about  the 
empty  grave  that  even  the  fact  has  become  sus- 
pect."- Perhaps,  they  urge,  the  body  was  still 
in  the  tonilj.  If  so,  it  had  probably  become  un- 
recognizable, and  therefore  it  would  have  been 
of  no  avail  to  produce  it.  These  considera- 
tions are  actually  brought  forward  as  of  weight. 
Let  us  be  quite  clear  on  one  point.  We  are 
dealing  here  with  a  question  in  one  sense  sub- 

1  Vic  dc  Jesus,  p.  433  (ist  French  edition). 

2  Macan,  p.  io6. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT.3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


%i&  ill 

li£    III  2.0 


1.4 


1.6 


% 


<^ 


/a 


/.^ 


■^^ 


<$*• 


c»- 


'5^ 


.> 


^ 


>^ 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


^^ 


iV 


:\ 


\ 


C 


#> 


^^3. 


o^ 


^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY    14S80 

(716)  872-4503 


.<^^^ 

^ 


^    <i, 


w 


:.  <i 


<if 


W 


p 


L^ 


C/j 


y 


^ 


280 


WITXESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


w 


% 


ordinate,  yet  in  another  sense  of  no  secondary 
importance.  It  is  not  fair  or  reasonable  to  treat 
it  as  of  no  moment.  The  actual  disposal  and 
destination  of  the  sacred  Body  of  the  Lord 
hav^c  to  be  explained  by  any  theory  which  pro- 
fesses to  deserve  credence ;  and  the  gravity  of 
the  subject  has  been  felt  from  the  earliest 
period.  Tertullian  tells  us  that  many  Jews  in 
his  day  said  that  the  gardener  had  removed 
it.  Quite  recently  Reville  suggests  that  Pilate 
may  have  got  the  soldiers  to  take  it  away,  or 
that  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  may  have 
removed  it,  and  left  the  grave-clothes  behind  to 
prevent  identification.  One  cannot  help  here 
noting,  in  passing,  the  implied  belief  that,  after 
all,  the  stories  in  the  Gospels  are  substantially 
true,  and  must  be  accounted  for.  Surely,  this 
is  the  strangest  way  of  explaining  the  empty 
grave,  the  body  gone,  and  the  grave-clothes 
left. 

Let  us,  however,  sec  that  we  appreciate  the 
full  importance  of  this  question.  Whatever  the 
Jews  may  have  believed  or  disbelieved  with  re- 
gard to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  they  were  at 
least  concerned  to  disprove^  it.  They  had  put 
the  Righteous  One  to  death.  There  could  be 
no  more  terrible  proof  of  their  wrong  doing 
than  the  resurrection  by  divine  power  of  Ilim 
whom  they  had  slain.  And  now  there  were  men 
speaking  openly  in  Jerusalem,  accusing  them 
of  the  murder  of  the   Messiah,  and    declaring 


THE  RF.SURRECTIO.\  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     28 1 


that    the    Crucified    One    had    risen    from    the 


grave. 


What  was  the  answer  to  tliis  testimony?  They 
miglit  find  difficulty  in  dcalini;  with  it  as  a  whole. 
But  on  one  point,  at  least,  they  could  come  to 
a  deciiiion.  ICither  the  Body  was  still  in  the 
gra\'e  or  it  was  not.  There  was  no  attempt  to 
produce  it;  so  we  may  be  quite  sure  it  was  not 
in  the  grave.  Most  certainly,  sufficient  time  had 
not  elapsed  to  prevent  all  possibility  of  identifi- 
cation. At  least  the  pierced  hands  and  side 
must  have  borne  some  trace  of  the  wounds 
inflicted.  There  can  be  but  one  inference  on 
this  point.  The  liody  was  not  produced  because 
it  was  no  longer  in  the  grave. 

Where  was  it?  In  the  keeping  of  friends  or 
in  the  hands  of  foes.  Shall  we  say  that  the 
disciples  had  borne  it  away?  This  seems  to 
have  been  one  of  the  stories  circulated  by  the 
Jews.  But  we  have  seen,  over  and  over  again, 
that  such  an  account  of  the  matter  is  incredible. 
If  that  were  true,  then  the  disciples  were  impos- 
tors,—  a  supposition  which  is  now  universally 
abandoned.  But  even  this  impossible  theory 
will  hardly  support  the  notion.  We  have  fur- 
ther to  believe  that  a  secret  Ahich  must  have 
been  known  to  a  large  number  ci{  persons  never 
leaked  out,  and  that  there  was  not  one  of  them  so 
honest,  not  one  so  indignant  at  the  deception  prac- 
tised by  his  companions,  as  to  expose  their  im-  j 
posture.    The  theory  breaks  down  at  every  point. 


282 


IVITN ESSES   TO   CIIRIST. 


1 


»■' 


If,  then,  the  VioCiy  of  tlie  Lord  was  not  in  tlic 
custody  of  His  friends,  can  wc  beUevc  that  Mis 
enemies  had  stolen  it  from  the  tomb?  How 
easily  in  that  case  miL;ht  the  controversy  have 
been  ended,  antl  the  testimony  of  the  discjiiles 
refi;ted  !  They  had  only  to  produce  the  Body. 
Tliey  did    not,  simply   because  they  coidd   not. 


He  is  risen;    He 


IS  n 


ot  1 


lere. 


That  sacred 


form  had,  by  the  power  of  God,  been  raised 
from  the  three  days'  sleep,  never  to  see  death 
more.      It    is    the    only    reasonable  account    of 


tl 


le   matter 


It 


IS  ine   one  on 


ly  tl 


leory  wnic 


:h 


fully  accounts  for  the  facts  which  are  not 
disputed  by  the  adversaries  of  Christianity 
themselves. 

\  We  do  not  dwell  upon  the  mic^hty  results  of 
the  Resurrection  as  affording  a  proof  of  the 
realit}'  of  the  occurrence.  It  is  aijjreed  on  all 
hands  that  the  Christian  Church  was  founded 
upon  this  belief  I^ven  if  we  were  to  admit  that 
the  belief  was  sufficient  to  account  for  those 
results  quite  apart  from  the  objective  reality  of 
the  thiuL^s  believed,  we  have  yet  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  that  new,  victorious  faith  that 
sprang  up  within  the  hearts  of  the  first  preach- 
ers of  the  (josi)el  of  Christ.  Of  this  faith  no 
reasonable  account  is  given,  or,  we  venture  to 
tliink,  can  be  given,  apart  from  the  reality  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  by  the  power  of  God. 
The  Vision  hypothesis  recognizes  the  existence 
and  the  power  of  this  faith,  and  offers  an  expla- 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESfrs  CHRIST.     283 

nation  whicli  really  gives  no  help  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem. 

Like  other  theories,  this  one,  we  may  safely 
predict,  will  have  its  day  until  its  fallacy  be- 
comes so  apparent  that  none  will  be  found  to 
avow  it,  and  then  it  will  take  its  place  in  the 
museum  of  the  disused  and  useless  arlillcr>'"of 
unbelief.  It  has  been  already  remarked  that 
one  of  the  latest  advocates  of  the  Vision 
hypothesis  shows  his  doubts  as  to  its  suffi- 
ciency, by  leavinj^  it  open  for  himself  to  take  up 
anew  the  other  theory  which  he  had  discarded. 
Rather,  he  says,  than  "  fall  back  upon  the  hy- 
pothesis of  a  miracle,  it  would  be  preferable  to 
adopt  the  theory  of  apparent  death."  ^  We  arc, 
therefore,  doing  no  injustice  to  these  controver- 
sialists when  we  say  that  they  start  with  the 
determination  not  to  believe  in  a  miracle,  and 
therefore  with  the  fixed  resolve  to  disbelieve  in 
the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  whatever  proofs 
or  arguments  may  be  brought  forward  in  its  sup- 
port. We  do  not  urge  that  such  a  method  is  pro- 
fuine  an^i  atheistical,  because  such  charges  would 
hardly  disturb  the  complacency  of  our  antago- 
nists. We  say  it  is  unscientific  and  unreasonable. ' 
The  existence  of  the  Christian  Church  is  a 
problem  which  cannot  properly  be  dismissed 
in  this  manner ;  and  those  who  refuse  to  admit 
the  truth  of  that  fact  and  doctrine  upon  which 
the  Church   has   always   professed  to    rest    the 

,  1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  iii.  p.  524. 


284 


ll'ITNESSES   TO  CHRIST. 


very  foundation  of  her  power,  should  at  least 
be  able  to  say  that  they  had  made  a  candid 
examination  of  the  arguments  brought  forward 
in  its  support. 

W^c  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised 
fables,  and  we  have  no  fear  that  any  weapons 
formed  against  the  city  of  God  shall  ever 
prosper.  If,  then,  we  feel  constrained  to  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered 
to  the  Saints,  it  is  not  because  we  have  any  fear 
of  its  being  overthrown.  If  we  arc  forced  to 
change  the  mode  of  our  defence,  it  is  not  be- 
cause we  find  any  serious  defects  in  the  works 
of  the  Apologists  who  have  gone  before  us  ; 
it  is  because  the  failures  of  past  attacks  have 
compelled  the  assailants  of  the  Gospel  to  adopt 
new  methods  of  offence.  We  could  afford  to 
ignore  these  feeble  attempts,  knowing  that  they 
will  soon  be  forgotten.  But  we  must  remember 
that  there  are  many  uninstructed  and  unskilful 
believers  in  Christ,  whose  peace  may  be  dis- 
turbed, even  if  their  faith  is  not  destroyed,  by 
hearing  of  objections  to  the  faith  to  which  no 
reply  has  been  attempted.  For  their  sakes  — 
for  the  sake  of  the  little  ones  who  are  dear  to 
the  heart  of  Christ,  and  for  the  sake  of  those 
who  b.ave  but  little  time  to  give  to  the  study  of 
these  difficulties,  we  must  in  the  first  place  set 
forth  the  acknowledged  facts  of  history,  and 
in  the  second  place  vindicate  their  true  meaning 
and  significance  ;  having  no  fears  for  the  Church 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.    285 

of  Christ,  which  can  be  overthrown  no  more 
than  can  the  throne  of  the  Eternal  God,  but 
bclicvin-  that  every  fresh  attack  on  the  truth 
of  the  Gospel  will,  in  the  long  run,  conduce 
only  to  the  strengthening  of  our  faith. 


NOTES. 


Note  A,  pa^e  28. 

It  was  about  a  century  before  this  time  that  the 
writings  of  the  ICngHsh  school  of  tlcists  began  to  ap- 
pear. Lord  Herbert  of  C.'herbury  (15S1-1648)  is 
generally  reckoned  the  first  of  tiicm.  WwX.  the  chief 
men  who  gave  distinct  shape  to  their  unbelief  were 
Toland  (1669-1722);  Collins  (1676-1729)  ;  Wool- 
ston  (1669-T731);  Tindal  (1657-1733),  author  of 
"  Christianity  as  old  as  the  C'realion,"  published  in 
1730,  the  work  against  whicii  lUiller's  "Analogy"  was 
prim  ii)ally  directed  ;  and  C'hubb  (1679-1747  ).  It  was 
largely  from  the  materials  supplied  by  tliesc  writers  that 
the  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments  ( WoJfcnb'uttclschc  Frag- 
mcntc  cities  Ungenivinkn)  were  composed.  They  were 
published  by  Lessing  (i 774-1 778),  who  was  then 
librarian  at  Wolfenbiittel,  and  were  represented  as 
being  extracts  from  the  library ;  but  there  is  now  no 
doubt  that  most  of  them  were  written  by  Hermann 
Samuel  Rcimarus  (1694-1768),  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  the  Gymnasium  at  Hamburg.  See  Art.  Frag»ic>itg 
Wolfcnbuttdschc,  in  Ilerzog,  Real-  Wortcrbuch,  \ol.  iv. 

P-  597. 


288 


NOTES. 


rm 


Note  1),  pa^e  48. 

Mr.  Cotter  Morison,  in  his  recently  published  work 
on  the  "Scrviceof  Man"  (London,  1887, pp.  i^ct  soj.), 
attempts  to  turn  the  ed^i^e  of  this  argument,  maintaining 
that  the  assailants  of  Christianity  failed  in  former  times 
because  they  were  not  fmnished  with  the  results  of  mod- 
ern scientific  inijuiry.  "  Nothing  is  more  common,"  he 
says,  "  than  the  assertion  that  any  objections  now  made 
to  Christianity  are  worn-out  sophisms,  which  have  been 
answered  and  disposed  of  over  and  over  again."  This 
is  not  quite  our  position,  although  such  a  rejoinder  is 
not  wholly  unjustified.  What  we  have  here  endeavored 
to  show  is,  that  the  assailants  of  the  CJo>pel  have  been 
beaten  off  in  every  successive  attack,  that  they  have 
been  forced  perpetually  to  change  their  ground  ami 
their  methods  of  assault,  and  that  every  fresh  change 
of  method  has  resulted  in  discomfiture.  Mr.  Morison 
says  that  the  defeat  of  tlic  early  deists  and  others  by 
no  means  guarantees  a  victory  over  "  the  methods  and 
results  of  modern  science."  To  imagine  such  a  thing 
'*  implies  a  complete  misconception  of  the  true  bear- 
ings of  the  (juestion  under  discussion."  "The  deists," 
he  goes  on,  "  were,  to  say  the  least,  as  unscientific 
as  the  theologians.  .  .  .  No  blame  attaches  to  the 
deists  —  able  and  worthy  men  most  of  them  —  for 
not  transcending  .the  knowledge  of  the  age.  'I'hey 
attempted  prematurely  to  solve  a  problem  before  the 
means  of  solution  were  at  hand." 

Mr.  Morison  cannot  settle  the  question  in  this  off- 
hand way.  It  remains,  indeed,  to  be  seen  whether 
the  present  "  scientific:  "  attacks  on  the  Gospel  will  be 
abandoned  as  the  rationalistic  and  mythical  methods 


KO'J'ES. 


289 


have  l)ccn.  But  at  least  the  Christian  apologists  have 
given  no  signs  of  alarm  in  presence  of  this  altered  front. 
Their  ]irctlecessors  have  beaten  back  the  attacks  of 
earlier  assailants,  and  they  do  not  doubt  that  they  will 
be  able  to  do  the  same  widi  the  present  foes  of  the 
faith.  Mr.  Morison  makes  excuses  for  the  unbelievers 
of  the  [)ast,  and  implies  that  the  new  school  will  be 
more  successful,  because  they  will  adojjt  ineliiods  more 
scientific.  It  does  not  seem  to  occur  to  him  that  the 
defenders  of  the  Christian  faith  have  also  learnt  some- 
thing which  may  help  them  to  be  wiser  and  stronger  in 
the  fight.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  be  perpetually  forgotten  f 
by  the  enemies  of  Christianity,  that  believers  and  un- 
believers alike  held  tlie  same  opinions  on  scientific  sub- 
jects in  the  past,  and  in  this  respect  were  cijually  Iiai)le 
to  go  astray.  Christians,  as  su(  h,  had  no  opinions 
whatever  on  such  subjects,  and  they  are  not,  as  Chris- 
tians, responsible  for  the  errors  into  which  they  fell. 
To  make  Christians  in  all  ages  resjionsible  for  old 
theories  of  "  Genesis  and  Geology,"  or  for  peculiar 
theories  of  "  Inspiration,"  not  sanctioned  by  the  Dible 
itself  or  by  the  Church  at  large,  would  be  about  as 
reasonable  as  to  make  scientific  men  in  all  ages  respon- 
sible for  the  corpuscular  theory  of  light. 


is  off- 
ther 


lie 


ill  be 
ithods 


Note  C,  page  77. 

Since  this  lecture  was  written,  the  Mnglish  Church 
Congress  held  at  Wolverhaminon  (October,  1S87)  has 
been  startled  by  hearing  from  Canon  Isaac  Taylor  that 
Mahometanism  is  a  belter  instrument  for  the  civiliza- 
tion of  Africa,  at  least,  than  Christianity.  Such  a  state- 
ment has  naturally  drawn  forth  a  good  deal  of  criticism. 

19 


290 


A'OTES. 


Into  the  allegations  made  by  Mr.  Taylor  as  regards 
the  relative  iiu-rits  of  African  (.'hristians  and  Mahom- 
etans it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  enter.  It  is  sufficient 
merely  to  note  that,  in  certain  i)articulars,  the  facts 
adduced  by  him  are  denied.  It  is  more  to  our  pur- 
pose to  note  that  even  Canon  Taylor  does  not  regard 
Mahonietanism  as  on  a  level  with  Christianity.  In  a 
letter  to  the  **  .Spectator  "  (Oct.  22,  18S7),  replying  to 
some  of  his  critics,  he  says  ;  "  I  think  Christianity  im- 
measurably the  higiier  and  the  better  faith  ;  "  and  he 
adds  :  "  The  cause,  or  one  cause,  of  our  failure  is,  I 
think,  that  our  Christian  standard  is  iuiprariically  high 
for  degradeil  races"  It  is  obvioi's,  therefore,  that 
whether  Mr.  'i'aylor  is  right  or  wrong,  his  views  in  no 
way  come  into  conflict  with  the  argiunent  of  this 
lecture. 

One  or  two  brief  remarks  may  be  added.  We  (juite 
admit  that  a  low  form  of  religion  or  su])erstition  may 
for  a  time  be  more  easily  diffused,  and  also,  in  a  sense, 
more  efficacious  than  a  high  and  spiritual  faith,  ahhough 
we  should  not  feel  justified  iti  diffusing  such  a  religion. 
In  regard  to  Mahometanism,  whatever  excellences  it 
possesses  arc  in  a  great  measure  derived  from  Chris- 
tianity itself,  although  it  has  little  of  the  spirituality  of 
the  Oospel.  With  respect  to  the  civilizing  influences  of 
the  two  religions  in  races  which  have  come  into  contact 
with  the  Western  nations,  we  may  point  to  the  Magyars 
and  the  Ottoman  Turks.  Both  are  of  Turanian  origin. 
The  creed  of  Islam  has  stopped  the  progress  of  civili- 
zation in  Turkey,  while  the  Hungarians,  who  have  for 
long  been  Christians,  a.nalgamate  freely  with  the  Indo- 
European  races,  and  are  now  hardly  distinguishable 
\  from  them.     It  will  hardly  be  argued  that  the  civiliza- 


\\  ■ 

w 


NOTES. 


a»t 


liza- 


tion  of  Turkey  is  on  a  level  with  that  of  Germviny 
or  of  ICnglaml. 

NoTK  I),  page  115. 

The  reasons  for  omitling  to  notice  the  gcolofjical 
and  other  objections  to  the  historical  character  of  the 
IJook  of  Clencsis  are  various.  In  the  first  place,  it 
seemed  to  me  that  the  subjects  actually  treated  were 
of  greater  present  importance  ;  and,  besiiles,  without 
entering  upon  other  reasons,  I  must  observe  that  the 
main  arguments  adtluced  in  support  of  the  truth  of 
the  Gospel  in  these  lectures  are  entirely  independent 
of  any  particular  view  of  the  Old  Testament.  On  the 
general  subject  of  the  relation  between  the  ]5ible  and 
science,  I  am  happy  to  express  my  concurrence  with 
the  following  remarks  of  the  I'ishop  of  I'edford,  con- 
tained in  a  sermon  at  Manchester  Cathctlral,  Kngland, 
preached  in  connection  with  the  meeting  of  the  British 
Association,  Sept.  4,  1887. 

He  took  for  his  text  2  Timothy  iii.  16  (Revised 
Version),  and  said  that  while  the  Bible  was  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  and  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness,  he  did  not  find  that  it 
claimed  to  be  profitable  for  scientific  study.  The 
man  of  (lod  was  by  it  furnished  completely  unto 
every  good  work,  but  he  did  not  discover  that  he 
was  by  it  fiirnished  even  partially  unto  the  conclusions 
of  philosophic  intpiiry.  He  was  quite  sure  that  many 
needless  difficulties  had  arisen  from  the  prevalence 
of  a  narrow  and  mechanical  view  of  ins[)iration,  and 
that  such  difficulties  would  often  be  removed  l)y  a 
frank  recognition  of  the  truth  that  God  allowed  the 
^vrite^s  of  the  Bible  to  write  as  men,  each  with  his 


292 


NOTES. 


[j*: 


:% 


individuality  distinctly  impressed  upon  his  work  ;  each, 
while  delivering  God's  message  and  guided  by  God's 
Spirit,  using  the  ordinary  phenomenal  language  of  his 
day  as  to  matters  of  science ;  and  in  no  other  way 
could  such  writer  have  been  intelligible  to  his  contem- 
poraries. Me  was  not  made  supernaturally  acquainted 
wiUi  the  mysteries  of  the  universe  or  with  the  annals 
of  universal  history.  I'eople,  therefore,  should  never 
go  to  the  IJible  for  what  it  was  never  meant  to  teach. 
He  supposed  many  in  that  congregation  had  been 
brought  up  in  the  old-fashioned  belief,  which  seemed 
to  our  forefathers  to  rest  so  clearly  on  the  authority 
of  the  Bible,  that  God  created  man  upon  the  earth  as 
a  totally  new  and  hitherto  unknown  being,  essentially 
different  from  all  other  creatures,  in  full-grown  stature 
and  complete  moral  and  intellectual  development.  But 
nobody  was  ignorant  that  modern  speculations  as  to 
the  origin  of  man  were  of  a  very  different  character 
from  that  old-fiishioncd  belief.  Of  all  those  specula- 
tions the  most  prominent,  as  well  as  the  most  starding, 
was  that  propounded  by  the  advocates  of  evolution. 
He  was  not  sure  that  our  best  scientific  men  would 
hold  that  theory  to  be  as  yet  established  beyond  ques- 
tion, but  undoubtedly  there  were  facts  and  arguments 
in  its  flivor  which  it  would  be  silly  to  despise,  and 
which  to  a  great  number  of  persons,  and  to  many  of 
our  scientific  men,  appeared  to  possess  all  but  con- 
clusive weight.  Now,  what  was  the  Christian  who 
believed  in  his  Bible  to  say  to  all  that  ?  There  were 
some  devout  men  who  would  say  that  those  and  any 
such-like  speculations  were  straight  against  God's 
Word,  and  were  therefore  untrue  and  absurd.  But 
that  was  not  the  spirit  which  was  likely  to  arrive  at 


NOTES. 


203 


the  tnilh.      Had  we  so  utterly  forgotten  the    injury 
done  to   tlie  cause   of  rchgion   by   the   stolid   resist 
anr.e  of  the  Chmch  in  former  days  to  the  cHscoveries 
of  astronomy   as    opposed    to   the    IJible?     Wc  had 
read  the    llil)le    wrongly   before;  we  might  be   read- 
ing  it   wrongly    now.     Me  had   called    the    lanumaire 
of  the  Dible  upon  i)hysical  matters  phenomenal,  be- 
cause that  language  was  obviously  not  meant  to  teach 
scientific    truth  or  iielp   scientific  discovery,  but   was 
the  language  of  appearances,  describing  things,  as  all 
popular  language   did,  not   as  they  are,  but   as    they 
seem.     If  the  writers  of  God's  Word   had  been   in- 
spired to  sjjeak  of  things  as  they  are  in  the  truth  of 
God's  own  knowledge,  that  mode  of  s[)eaking  would 
have  been  wholly  unintelligible  to  man.     In  abstaining 
from    scientific    revelations,  God's    Word   was    simply 
adapting  itself  to  our  understandings,  in  the  same  way 
that  it  did  when  it  spoke  of  God  Himself,  —  in  anthro- 
pomorphic language  ascribing  to  Him  the  members  of 
a  human  body,  that  we  might  see  the  shadow  of  His 
acts   on   the   wall.      But   there   was  another  attitude 
which  some  took  up  in  regard  to  those  speculations. 
They  said  that  religion  and  science  occupied  wholly 
different  spheres  of  Nature,  and  need  in  no  way  inter- 
meddle with  each  other ;  they  revolved,  as  it  were,  in 
different  i)lanes  and  never  met.     It  was  said  we  might 
pursue  scientific  studies  with  the  utmost  freedom  and 
at  the  same  time  maintain  the  most  reverent  recrard 
to  theology,  having  no  fears  of  collision  because  there 
were  no  points  of  contact.     For  his  own  part  he  had 
never    l)een    able    to   understand    that    position.       It  1 
seemed   to   him   there   were,   and   must    be,   various  i 
points  of  contact  between  theology  and  science,  and 


294 


NOTES. 


i 


therefore  frequent  danger  of  collision,  and  he  con- 
sidered it  was  foolish  to  ignore  or  deny  that.  No 
doubt  science  and  religion  did  revolve  in  different 
orbits,  but  those  orbits  cut  one  another  at  certain 
points.  God  spoke  to  us  by  His  Word  and  by  His 
works ;  and  while  for  the  most  part  He  spoke  of 
different  matters  in  those  two  His  great  languages,  it 
was  not  always  so.  Sometimes  He  spoke  about  the 
same  things  in  the  two  languages,  and  then  we  were 
bound  to  interpret  the  one  by  the  other,  and  to  be 
very  careful  that  we  did  not  misinterpret  either  lan- 
guage. Now,  the  origin  of  man  was  just  one  of  those 
matters  on  which  God  seemed  to  speak  in  both  lan- 
guages. But  it  seemed  quite  possible  to  reconcile  the 
theory  of  physical  evolution  in  the  case  of  man's  out- 
ward organism  with  the  dignity  which,  by  the  fiat  of 
the  Creator's  will,  had  been  bestowed  upon  the  being 
whom  He  made  to  be  a  new  creature  with  a  splendid 
dowry  of  spiritual  and  intellectual  powers.  The  bold- 
est speculations  with  regard  to  man's  origin  were  not 
inconsistent  with  the  firmest  belief  in  his  endowment 
with  a  special  gift  of  Godlike  spiritual  powers,  and 
with  a  new  nature  incapable  of  death.  He  founded 
that  statement  upon  the  vast  and  profound  distinction 
between  the  material  and  the  spiritual  in  man,  repudi- 
ating to  the  utmost  those  materialistic  theories  which 
would  confound  the  two,  or  make  the  spiritual  nothing 
else  but  phases  and  phenomena  of  the  material.  Such 
views  he  held  to  be  refuted  by  the  very  facts  of  human 
nature,  and  to  be  opposed  to  all  that  was  highest  and 
best  in  our  nature.  He  believed  there  was  a  whole 
region  of  facts  which  could  not  be  rationally  accounted 
for  by  any  one  who  saw  in  man's  nature  nothing  but 


1^ 


NOTES. 


295 


the  material.  He  had  spoken  of  the  misreadings  of 
the  Bible,  because  that  was  the  side  on  wiiich  he  him- 
self was  bound  to  be  mainly  on  his  guard.  The  truest 
votaries  of  science  knew  full  well  that  they  had  to  be 
no  less  on  their  guard  against  misreadings  on  their 
side.  It  was  easy  to  mistake  our  own  crude  interpre- 
tations for  the  very  voice  of  God.  After  all,  we  were 
very  ignorant.  The  wisest  were  but  feeling  after  real 
knowledge,  and  he  who  had  learned  most  and  knew 
most  was  generally  the  one  who  was  best  aware  how 
little  he  knew.  There  was  a  true  sort  of  Christian  ag- 
nosticism which  was  nothing  else  but  a  bowing-down, 
in  our  conscious  ignorance,  before  mysteries  too  vast 
and  high  for  our  feeble  grasp.  He  had  spoken  of 
points  in  the  borderland  where  science  and  religion 
approached  each  other.  But  was  there  nothing  to 
be  said  of  the  vast  rjgions  in  which  there  was  no 
point  of  contact?  Christians  believed  they  had  a 
whole  realm  of  precious  truths  and  realities  wholly 
removed  from  the  jjurview  of  physical  research  and 
scientific  classification.  By  means  of  them  people 
could  be  guiiled  safely  through  a  world  of  peril, 
taught  to  conquer  a  rebellious  will,  and  purify  a  cor- 
rupt hea-t.  Then  they  could  go  back  to  science, 
rich  with  new  treasures  of  wisdom,  strong  with  new 
life  and  power,  worshipping  not  Nature  but  Nature's 
God, 


Note  E,  page  138. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  period  during 
which  the  Christian  theology  took  shape  was  •'  the 
most  calamitous  which  the  human  race  has  lived 
through  in  historic  times."     (Morison,  p.  35.)     How 


296 


NOTES. 


wonderful,  then,  that  Christian  theologians  were  so 
remarkably  preserved  from  error  !  I'^ven  if  we  should 
find  notions  i)revailing  o'-'d  expressions  employed 
which  later  times  could  not  saiiction,  it  would  be 
unfair  to  charge  the  15ible  with  theories  which  were 
imported  into  it  and  not  deduced  from  its  teaching, 
or  to  hold  the  Church  at  large  responsible  for  doc- 
trines which  it  has  never  formally  adopted.  Compare 
also  the  same  writer's  remarks,  on  pages  42  et  scq.,  on 
the  varying  concci)tions  of  the  idea  of  God,  with  the 
argument  of  the  lecture. 

Note  F,  page  145. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  give  here  some  account 
of  Darwin's  views  on  this  subject  as  stated  by  Pro- 
fessor Max  Miiller  in  his  recently  published  "  Science 
of  Thought,"  pp.  102  ct  scq.  Quoting  Darwin's  words, 
"  Therefore  I  should  infer  from  analogy  that  probably 
all  the  organic  beings  which  have  ever  lived  on  this 
earth  have  descended  from  some  one  primordial  form, 
into  which  life  was  first  breathed,"  he  remarks  :  "This 
is  all  very  carefully  worded,  yet  Darwin  was  not  satis- 
fied, and  in  later  editions  he  has  considerably  altered 
this  very  paragraph.  The  later  omission  (sixth  edition, 
p.  423)  of  the  words  '  into  which  life  was  first  breathed  * 
has  been  much  remarked  upon,  as  indicating  on  Dar- 
win's part  a  surrender  of  a  belief  in  some  extra-natural 
powers.  IJut  if  Darwin  had  really  meant  to  surrender 
that  belief,  he  would  never  have  written  the  following 
words  (Origin  of  Species,  sixth  edition,  p.  421)  : 
*  I  see  no  good  reason  why  the  views  given  in  this 
volume  should  shock  the  religious  feelings  of  any  one. 
...  A  celebrated  author  and  divine  has  written  to  me 


NOTES. 


207 


that  he  has  gradually  learnt  to  see  that  it  is  just  as 
nobjo  a  conception  of  the  Deity  to  believe  that  He 
created  a  few  original  forms  capable  of  self-develop- 
ment into  other  and  needful  forms,  as  to  believe  that 
He  organized  a  fresh  act  of  creation  to  supply  the  void 
caused  by  the  action  of  His  laws.' 

"  If  I  interpret  Darwin's  words  rightly,"  Professor 
Miiller  goes  on,  "  he  seems  to  me  one  of  those  who 
admit,  nay,  who  postulate,  the  existence  of  some  extra- 
natural  cause,  however  much  he  may  shrink  from 
asserting  anything  regarding  the  mode  of  operation. 
Darwin's  books  require  to  be  read  carefully,  and  from 
edition  to  edition.  Let  us  look  at  the  last  words  of 
his  great  work  on  the  *  Origin  of  Species,'  which  no 
one  would  suppose  to  have  been  written  at  random. 
*  There  is  a  grandeur,'  he  writes,  '  in  this  view  of  life 
with  its  several  powers  having  been  originally  breathed 
[by  the  Creator]  into  a  few  forms,  or  into  one ;  and 
that,  whilst  this  planet  has  gone  cycling  on  according 
to  the  fixed  law  of  gravity,  from  so  simple  a  beginning 
endless  forms,  most  beautiful  and  most  wonderful, 
have  been  and  are  being  evolved.' 

"  In  this  passage  the  words  '  by  the  Creator '  were 
absent  in  the  first  edition,  and  were  adtied  in  the  later 
editions.  Surely  they  were  added  with  a  purpose. 
And  what  could  have  been  this  purpose  except  to 
define  his  position  as  one  of  those  who,  however  far 
their  researches  and  speculations  may  lead  them,  feel 
and  recognize  that  there  is  always  a  Eeyond,  whatever 
name  we  call  it,  —  a  something  that,  even  if  we  call  it 
by  no  name,  is  yet  forever  present  and  irresistible.  .  .  . 

"  If  Darwin,  later  in  life,  said, '  I  think  that  generally, 
—  and  more   and  more   as   I   grow  older,  —  but  not 


298 


NOTES. 


always,  an  agnostic  would  be  the  most  correct  descrip- 
tion of  my  state  of  mind,'  who,  as  he  grows  older  and 
older,  would  not  heartily  join  in  these  words?  Surely, 
the  more  we  learn  what  knowledge  really  means,  the 
more  we  feel  that  agnosticism,  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  is  the  only  possible,  the  only  reverent,  and  I  may 
add,  the  only  Christian  position,  which  the  human  mind 
can  occupy  before  the  Unknown  and  the  Unknowable. 
And,  at  any  rate,  he  had  introduced  those  words,  as  we 
learn  from  his  Life  just  published,  with  the  remark : 
'  In  my  most  extreme  fluctuations  I  have  never  been 
an  atheist  in  the  sense  of  denying  the  existence  of 
God;  " 

NoTF-  G,  page  183. 

"  There  is  nothing  more  opposed  to  religion,  as  it  is 
seen  in  human  history,  than  the  frivolous  and  'iper- 
ficial  optimism  that  sees  nothing  in  it  but  the  worshi]) 
of  the  ideal.  Religion  is  everywhere  begotten  of  the 
astonishment  with  which  the  human  mind  is  seized  in 
the  presence  of  evil  and  sin,  and  of  the  desire  which  it 
experiences  to  explain  their  existence,  and,  if  possible, 
to  destroy  it.  He  who  is  not  conscious  of  suffering 
any  evil,  who  is  chargeable  with  no  fault,  will  care  little 
to  raise  his  thoughts  above  the  interests  of  this  life. 
But  he  who  says  to  himself.  Why  should  I  endure 
these  evils,  and  how  shall  I  succeed  in  pacifying  a 
conscience  laden  with  sin?  is  already  on  the  path  of 
religion."     (Hartmann.) 

Note  H,  page  243. 

"Meanwhile,"  says  Mr.  Cotter  Morison  ("Ser\'ice  of 
Man,"  p.  33),  "  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospels 


NOTES. 


299 


anil  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  genuineness 
of  several  epistles  ascribed  to  Saint  Paul,  have  been 
gravely  impugned,  and  in  the  opinion  of  many  seriously 
damaged  ;  an  opinion  not  shaken  by  the  counter  efforts 
of  the  C'hristian  apologists.  Again  the  fortress  of  the- 
ology has  been  surrounded  and  commanded  by  the 
forces  at  the  disposal  of  knowledge." 

If  we  acciuit  Mr.  Morison  of  disingenuousness,  we 
can  see  here  only  the  blinding  influence  of  inveterate 
prejudice.  Why  does  the  writer  not  state  that  there 
are  at  least  four  epistles  of  Saint  Paul  to  wiiich  these 
remarks  have  no  application  ?  I  le  must  know  that  Laur 
and  Hilgcnfeld  ("  Einleitung  ")  and  Renan  ("  Origi- 
nes  ")  all  unhesitatingly  accept  Romans,  First  and  Sec- 
ond Corinthians,  and  Galatians  as  genuine,  and  for  the 
most  part  pure  and  uncorrupt  as  they  were  written  ; 
and  he  ought  to  know  that  the  Christian  theologian, 
so  far  from  feeling  "  surrounded "  by  the  enemy,  is 
quite  ready  to  reconstruct  the  edifice  of  the  faith  from 
the  materials  furnished  by  these  books. 


Note  I,  page  266. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  produce  this  theory 
in  a  narrative  form  in  a  book  entitled  "  Philochristus,"  ^ 
which  professes  to  be  a  fourth  "  synoptic  (iosjiel,"  os- 
tensibly proceeding  from  one  who  was  an  eyewitness 
of  the  events  in  the  history  of  our  Lord  upon  earth. 
Instead  of  this  work  being  a  support  to  the  Vision  or 
Illusion  hypothesis,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  imagine  a 

1  Published  by  Macmillan  (Cambridge  and  London),  and 
attributed  to  a  writer  who  contributed  several  articles  in  tlic 
same  spirit  to  the  "  Encyclopaedia  Lritannica." 


300 


NOTES. 


better  method  of  discrediting  the  whole  theory.  Let 
any  one  compare  the  account  given  by  Philochristus 
of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  after  His  resurrection  with 
th'-sc  which  are  recorded  in  the  canonical  Gospels, 
and  he  will  see  at  once  that  the  new  "  Gospd  "  gives 
precisely  that  support  to  the  theory  which  is  entirely 
absent  from  the  authentic  documents.  The  theory  of 
illusion  is  immediately  suggested  by  the  book  of  the 
nineteenth  century ;  it  would  never  occur  to  the  mind 
of  any  one  reading  the  original  Gospels.  If  the  new 
book  was  a  disingenuous  attempt  to  sustain  the  mod- 
ern theory,  it  certainly  is  an  abject  failure  ;  but  per- 
haps it  was  written  witli  the  design  of  showing  the 
absurdity  of  the  hypothesis.  If  so,  it  has  been  un- 
usually successful. 


THE     END. 


li 


